Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Well, that relies on total speculation. Kinda like door-to-door evangelists: make some shit up, and then make you choose between two answers you also make up.

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Well, that relies on total speculation. Kinda like door-to-door evangelists: make some shit up, and then make you choose between two answers you also make up.

.
and we're moooooooving along...right this way, folks

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

.
and we're moooooooving along...right this way, folks

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

A friend at a seminary in the midwest raised that question once. It caused quite a stir.

Of course the Bible doesn't bother giving any decent definition of the term "soul", so there's no place to even start answering the question from that direction.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

For a scientist supposedly accustomed to rigorous thinking, that's a particularly stupid question. It presupposes that no knowledge is necessary about the subject being discussed in order to comment on it. He would certainly object to equally shallow criticism of evolutionary theory and point out that you have to understand the theory first.

So, he's a hypocrite.

 

[Jacquemar]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I've been wondering the same thing my whole life. The whole scapegoat concept is silly.

 

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I've been wondering the same thing my whole life. The whole scapegoat concept is silly.

Well, jacquemar, you are clearly mistaken and ignorant for asking that question, for obvious reasons that I'm not responsible to explain beyond simply asserting it to be the case. You and Dawkins, both! Tsk tsk tsk.

- - - Updated - - -

A friend at a seminary in the midwest raised that question once. It caused quite a stir.

Of course the Bible doesn't bother giving any decent definition of the term "soul", so there's no place to even start answering the question from that direction.

No place to start and no place to wind up there either.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Unpleasant ideas are often the most provocative. That that goes over Dawkins head should be no surprise. Dawkins' reaction even seems rather prissy..."oh no, an unpleasant idea!" Personally, I find the crucifixion a fitting image for our state of affairs.

 

[Jacquemar]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

It's as least as good as being tied to a tree and castrated. ^^

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I've been wondering the same thing my whole life. The whole scapegoat concept is silly.

You mean it's silly to you. For most of human history, the idea of getting to choose who you marry was silly -- to all those people.

That doesn't make it silly in and of itself.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Unpleasant ideas are often the most provocative. That that goes over Dawkins head should be no surprise. Dawkins' reaction even seems rather prissy..."oh no, an unpleasant idea!" Personally, I find the crucifixion a fitting image for our state of affairs.

I can't remember the name of the book, but a theologian back in the sixties approached the whole crucifixion scenario in a way that makes more sense to modern minds: Humanity, being in rebellion, was subject to being wiped out, because there was no one to pay the penalty for that rebellion. So God the Father decreed humans must all die -- but God the Son decides He doesn't like that decision and so He leaves Heaven, becomes a man, and effectively joins the other team. Being God, any punishment against Him as a man is effectively infinite, so if He makes the payment it's good for everyone.

My sister once did a presentation of the Gospel from a quality engineer's point of view: the whole product line is defective, and the thing to do is to just throw it out. But God the Son realizes that there's a way to fix defective products, which entails becoming one of the products Himself. So he volunteers, and the destruction of the defective products is put on hold while he proceeds to go about fixing as many defective units as can be done. By becoming one of the products, he provides a new mold/template with which others can be fixed. But unlike in a factory, these units are alive, and in order for the fix to be made, they have to die first -- sort of the equivalent of heating a part and re-forging it.

 

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Unpleasant ideas are often the most provocative. That that goes over Dawkins head should be no surprise. Dawkins' reaction even seems rather prissy..."oh no, an unpleasant idea!" Personally, I find the crucifixion a fitting image for our state of affairs.

I hadn't pegged you for such a pessimist.

I can't remember the name of the book, but a theologian back in the sixties approached the whole crucifixion scenario in a way that makes more sense to modern minds: Humanity, being in rebellion, was subject to being wiped out, because there was no one to pay the penalty for that rebellion. So God the Father decreed humans must all die -- but God the Son decides He doesn't like that decision and so He leaves Heaven, becomes a man, and effectively joins the other team. Being God, any punishment against Him as a man is effectively infinite, so if He makes the payment it's good for everyone.

My sister once did a presentation of the Gospel from a quality engineer's point of view: the whole product line is defective, and the thing to do is to just throw it out. But God the Son realizes that there's a way to fix defective products, which entails becoming one of the products Himself. So he volunteers, and the destruction of the defective products is put on hold while he proceeds to go about fixing as many defective units as can be done. By becoming one of the products, he provides a new mold/template with which others can be fixed. But unlike in a factory, these units are alive, and in order for the fix to be made, they have to die first -- sort of the equivalent of heating a part and re-forging it.

I'm afraid that doesn't make any more sense. The whole idea of penalty calculus is just a bit silly.