You have to admit Easter IS rather confusing, let me see if I have this right.

[cleanhippie]

[Bosso 63]

1. Easter is celebrating the day Jesus came out of his tomb.

He then saw his shadow and we have six more weeks of winter.




My father used to tell an awesome extended version of that joke. He had a dead pan style, perfect timing, and embellished details that he had garnered during his Catholic education.

[nolabear]

2. You know I hate to go all "Oh c'mon" on y'all but

though the practices of Easter and other religions can be irritating if taken without imagination (which admittedly many do), the concepts are quite wonderful. Spring is when the world is reborn, when things we thought dead show signs of life and hope and fertility reigns supreme. We do feel bad about our wrongdoings, and want forgiveness and a new chance. None of that is hard to grasp. It's the literalization that completely cuts people off from the larger, more embraceable meaning.

I just had to throw that out. Happy Spring!

[roguevalley]

34. I agree with you, Nolabear

[mistertrickster]

3. Oh, shut up.

Are you going to make fun of Jews for Hanauka and Muslims for Ramadan while you're at it?

I'll let you believe what you want and you let me believe what I want--it's called the "Enlightenment."

Let's see if we can live up to the 18th Century, shall we?

[eqfan592]

6. I don't believe anybody said you couldn't believe what you want.

But that doesn't entitle any of us to being spared ridicule for believing in ridiculous things.

[humblebum]

127. So then it's OK to ridicule atheists if I consider their POV to be ridiculous?

Funny how that works.

[Iggo]

7. LOL...yeah! Shut up!

[cleanhippie]

8. I will shut up just as soon as you shut up first.

But I have to admit, "oh, shut up" is a very persuasive argument.

[humblebum]

133. Why is it that I doubt that? nt

[TahitiNut]

33. Thanks for the poutrage.

[The Magistrate]

126. Saying What You Believe Is Funny As Hell, Sir, Is Not Preventing You From Believing It

[RainDog]

142. The Enlightenment was not about accepting all beliefs

The Enlightenment was about overcoming superstitious religious beliefs and substituting the "just so" stories of religion with empirical evidence. The ability to mock religious belief made it psychologically possible to have revolutions across the western world and overthrow monarchies.

These revolutions included removing the power of religion from political life. The French Revolutionaries, the DIRECT descendants of the philosophes, confiscated church property and executed high-ranking church officials in order to destroy the power of religion in France. And, you know what? They were successful.

They had no tolerance for the religious institutions of the western world (which was the one they knew) because they saw them as the enemy of knowledge, democracy and a better world.

The tradition of overthrowing religious indoctrination is CENTRAL to the entire progress of The Enlightenment - religion was the antithesis of enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was about exposing religious fraud.

[Bolo Boffin]

143. +1. n/t

[Bette Noir]

4. Funny comic; made me laugh.

It only demonstrates that Easter, as celebrated in the US, combines two unrelated holidays in different traditions: The Christian commemoration of Jesus's resurrection, and the pagan celebration of the return of spring. It's no odder than the combination of the Nativity with Santa Claus.

[tex-wyo-dem]

11. Actually, many of the Christian and Pagan traditions are very closely linked....

but, not in the way one might think.

Back around 300AD, the Roman Empire was being divided by religious factions. Paganism was still the primary spiritual/religious practice, but Christianity was becoming more prevalent and Constantine, the Roman emperor at the time, converted to Christianity. In an effort to bring these different factions together and help "meld" the Pagans with the Christians, Constantine worked with the Catholic church to make Christian celebrations, symbolism, etc more "in-line" with Pagan traditions. That's basically why Easter falls on the spring equinox and Christmas falls on the winter solstice, and why angels and Jesus have halos (taken from the pagan sun disk that many deities sported). There are many, many examples of this...Christian symbols and traditions that are actually, at their root, Pagan in origin.

The Pagans celebrate the spring as a time of fertility, rebirth and resurrection of the earth. Christians celebrate Easter as a time of the resurrection of Christ...symbolically the same thing.

[tavalon]

113. Yes, indeed.

[1620rock]

5. Not odd at all, it gives people of different beliefe systems reason to celebrate.

[pasto76]

9. read a blurb few weeks ago saying the 'resurrection' is based on the shroud of turin

maybe it was posted here, I forget.

nutshell is that someone is presenting his/her case that nobody actually saw that dude jesus rise; but the whole shroud thing made people think he was still around...add the usual human embellishment and you get the whole deal

[mistertrickster]

10. The Shroud has never been explained by "modern science"

that can explain everything right up until it can't.

[cleanhippie]

12. And nothing has ever been explained by "religion"

ever.




Or maybe I am wrong. Is there something about the world we live in that HAS been explained by religion?

[mistertrickster]

14. When the fool hears of the Tao,

he laughs.

If he did not laugh, it would not be the Tao.

[cleanhippie]

16. I guess we are in agreement, then.

Religion has never explained anything.

[mistertrickster]

18. Yup, you win.

I admit it.

[cleanhippie]

75. I didn't realize it was a contest. I was merely looking for agreement or disagreement

with my premise, and apparently you agreed.


Win? Hardly.

[elias7]

108. Understood? Hardly...

[cleanhippie]

119. Incoherent? Assuredly...

[elias7]

135. Not really

i just think you get as much as you think you get

[tavalon]

114. No, that would be spirituality

Which is sometimes practiced within the confines of a religion.

[cleanhippie]

120. Huh?

What would be spirituality?

[eqfan592]

13. Actually, you got that a bit wrong.

It can't explain everything, and there are many unanswered questions, but that doesn't mean the answer is automatically "god did it." Studies continue to be conducted, new hypothesis tested, it is the way of things. Science is not the place for those looking for quick, simple answers. That's the realm of religion.

Nice try, tho.

[mistertrickster]

15. Since you assumed so many things I didn't mean and don't believe

I have no interest in arguing the points you say I make.

But, on edit, suffice it to say, I agree with Hamlet: "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" and by "philosophy," Shakespeare meant science.

[eqfan592]

19. I assumed nothing.

You made a statement about science, which I countered.

You then, in your claim of my making assumptions, make yet another statement (in this case a quote) that is just another way of saying the exact same thing you said the first time, which has already been countered.

Sorry, but the fail is very strong with you.

[mistertrickster]

21. Thank you for magnificent victory dance

on the forty yard line.

Next up: your cure for world hunger.

[eqfan592]

23. Ummm, wtf?

You didn't even attempt a real counter argument, which was my point. There was no "victory dance" involved.

The fail continues to be strong in you.

And BTW, science did help a lot with world hunger. Check out something called dwarf wheat.

[eqfan592]

28. Again, you got it completely wrong.

Just underscoring how badly you missed my point in the first place.

Science cannot YET explain many things, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying and won't eventually find the answers. You are promoting a "god of the gaps" ideology, a god that diminishes over time.

And thanks for the ad hominem attack. I'm sure it really added to the credibility of your argument.

[cbayer]

29. God of the gaps (along with the NTS counter-argument) is stale and not a good weapon

in this debate.

The assumption the god diminishes over time is one uses that argument is patently false.

When science opens a new door, there is only more mystery and more questions and an expanded range of what is not yet known. If anything, the god of the gaps argument displays a god that grows even larger over time.

I know it's in the handbook, but it needs to be tossed (along with that stupid NTS argument).

[eqfan592]

41. So your argument is that every time science explains something that was previously explained by...

..."God did it," that god actually grows?

I do understand what your saying by science opening new doors, but I think you are misapplying the concept at this point.

You don't strike me as the sort who believes that "god did it" is a valid reason for not studying something, so I don't think a "god of the gaps" concept even applies to you.

[Leontius]

44. Excellent points nt.

[darkstar3]

57. Wow. That was sad.

I would tell you that you need to read more about those two apologist arguments, but the fact you've shown here is not that you misunderstood them, but that you have purposely twisted them into something they are not in order to dismiss them.

And lest you (purposely?) misunderstand this post, yes, the "god of the gaps" and the "no true scotsman" are arguments put forth by Christian apologists. The names were given to them by skeptics in order to identify them for what they were. They are not "counter arguments" found in some "handbook." So if you have such a problem with them, then I suggest you tell your apologist friends to come up with something new for once.

Oh, and stop telling us in summary that science is slowly marching further toward ignorance. That's just funny.

[eqfan592]

43. I made no such assumption.

Do I think we will ever know everything there is to know? I honestly don't know because I can't see into the future.

Do I think than an embrace of religion precludes acceptance of science? No. I never made any such claim in the least. I didn't even imply such. My only argument would be that simply saying "god did it" as an explanation for what we do not know is a dead end, which is what I have stated previously.

And your continued ad hominem attacks are sure to have the same impact as the previous ones.

[mr blur]

148. No, he didn't.

And there is also the viewpoint that what Shakespeare actually intended Hamlet to mean was that he, Horatio, didn't know everything.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Horatio is, like Hamlet, a student at the University of Wittenberg, a notable outpost of Protestant humanism.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. nor can we explain how Incan and Mayan stones can be so perfectly

fitted together, several thousand years ago.

I guess some god did those, too.

[Iggo]

68. Nope. That was ancient aliens.

[Marrah_G]

141. OMG, the hair guy, I LOVE THE HAIR GUY!!!

lololol

[skepticscott]

56. The Shroud is a 14th century painting

on linen, using vermillion and red ochre pigments in a tempera base, executed by a well known technique called grisaille. How much more of an explanation do you need? The local bishop at the time it first appeared knew it was a painting, and had a pretty good idea who the artist was. The first Shroud commission also determined it was a painting, as did the only useful work of the second. It was only once "scientists" figured out they could get on talk shows and sell books by proffering alternate theories (for which the evidence always collapsed, necessitating a move to the next), and since the need for certain fundamentalists to spread the view that this is THE burial shroud of Jesus Christ came to be taken seriously, that the Shroud has come to be seen as so inexplicable.

Viewed as an artifact, without all the religious baggage, it is not that hard a problem. No more difficult than those that are solved in museum and university laboratories all the time. Will we ever know every last detail of how it was created? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't well understood. That doesn't make it a Mystery. Or a MYSTERY. Or even a MysterY.

[truth2power]

17. You have to admit that the concept of a moveable death day does give one pause....

I remember learning in my confirmation class in the little mainstream Protestant church where I was raised (United Brethren - sinced merged into United Methodist) that Easter was the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.

It's all metaphor; and how we explain higher truths to ourselves.


edit> typo

[Igel]

132. Yeah.

It was an attempt to mirror the date of the Passover without actually acceding to the Hebrew calendar. Some churches actually kept "easter" on Passover.

But Passover was mobile. Rather like "April 9", it could fall on various days of the week. Yet Christ's resurrection was held to have been on a Sunday, 3 days after his crucifixion on Friday.

It was necessary both to avoid anything Jewish--they were already looked down and hated by the 200s and certainly more so as time went on--and to fix the date of Easter on a Sunday (if only to justify declaring the 7th-day Sabbath to be Jewish, a fast day, and utterly hateful--and the true Xian 'sabbath' to be on a Sunday).

They knew what they wanted. It was just a matter of finding a way of making it happen and calling it "Christian." Some things never change.

Anyway, the compromise wasn't to fix a date for Easter, but to try to approximate in non-Jewish terms the middle of the first month, when Passover would have been kept. Some years it's close--the first day of unleavened bread started Friday night. Other years it's nearly a month off.

I forget the Orthodox calculation. I'm pretty sure it's different.

[mistertrickster]

20. Jews killed Christ and Muslims are terrorists . . .

Oh, wait, no . . . it's only Christians who can be baited and ridiculed.

My bad.

[eqfan592]

24. Ahhh, I see. Persecution complex at work here.

That explains it all.

[cbayer]

31. Let me add a few more of those stale arguments that are in the handbook.

Persecution complex, projection and passive aggressive are all terms that get thrown around to describe the behavior of theists. Just for the record, they are not being used correctly at all and should be abandoned.

[mistertrickster]

32. Right, I didn't post a comic showing atheists BURNING IN HELL, did I?

I don't know why Christians here have to get singled out for ridicule on Easter.

[Leontius]

35. Because it's the cool thing to do

It shows the sophistication and superiority of enlightened rational intellect over ignorant Bronze age superstition.

[mistertrickster]

36. Yup, agreed.

As if no one can be rational and traditionally spiritual at the same time.

[Leontius]

42. Welcome to the snakepit

It's actually sometimes interesting and thought provoking.

[eqfan592]

47. Believing in irrational things does tend to call into question ones rationality.

I'm not saying it makes a person completely irrational on all subjects, but nevertheless it is something to be considered.

Also, it has nothing to do with it being the "cool" thing to do, btw. What better time to call into question the events of a religions holiday than on that holiday?

[cbayer]

49. Agree that believing in irrational things (like one has the answer and everyone who does not

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

agree with it is stupid or worse) does call into question ones rationality.

It applies to extremists on both sides.

To your other point, I think mocking people (including calling them irrational because they perceive the world differently than you) is particularly distasteful during one of their major holidays. But, hey, if you want to offend, there is not better day to do it.

[cordelia]

51. Well said.

[skepticscott]

63. Is it OK to call a group of creationists

"a bunch of dumbasses" as long as it isn't Easter or Christmas?

And what about telling the majority of the world's Christians that their concept of "god" as an omnipotent father-creator is outdated and simply wrong, and that no one sensible believes it any more?

[darkstar3]

65. +1

[SamG]

64. Calling issues and faith into question is only acceptably done in...

one style?

One chooses to feel offense, where none is intended.

If one cannot stand by one's beliefs, and feels offended when they are challenged from one perspective or from another, some in a style totally solemn in nature, as when theologians ask believers to question, and some challenges from a humorous point of view, just what are acceptable challenges to beliefs and what are NOT acceptable becomes a matter of personal taste of those who are challenged.

Either a faith is strong enough to withstand any and all challenges, or a faith is fragile enough to take offense at some of the more personally provocative and substantially insightful challenges.

[eqfan592]

106. Indeed, somebody saying they have the answer and everyone who does not agree...

...with it is stupid or worse would be irrational, which is why such a statement typically emanates from a religious belief. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I just call into question the answers of religion, and ask for evidence to support them. Having seen no such evidence, I find the answers offered wanting in more ways than one.

[cbayer]

37. Because there are some very hurt and angry people here who can not help themselves.

We can be compassionate or we can just ignore them or we can try to engage them in a positive way.

FTR, I have found that for some, the third option is entirely fruitless.

Happy Easter to you! This is the christian holiday that stands for renewal, new beginnings, forgiveness. Let's celebrate it and ignore the jeering!

[mistertrickster]

38. Wise words, wise indeed. Shalom to all. nt

[cbayer]

39. Shalom to you mistertrickster.

[SamG]

66. If I were a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or of any faith,

I would not choose to spend my religious weekend in personal postings on a message board, with attempts to impugn all non-believers in my particular faith by such baiting broad brush accusations as to call them "very hurt and angry people here who can not help themselves"

very hurt and angry people here who can not help themselves

That would NOT be the way I would exercise my sense of superiority over them on a religious holiday weekend. I would, instead, spend it with those I admire and love, and simply say nothing to those with whom I disagree over issues of personal beliefs and faith.

But that's just me.

[cbayer]

81. You are right.

That is just you.

[tavalon]

116. Not ridicule, teasing. You stole our holiday. You didn't even try to rename it much. Ostara = Easter

So we tease, gently, to remind you that all religions beg, borrow and steal from one another. Check out Joseph Campbell sometime and then find that funny bone.

[eqfan592]

121. You could have posted one, and we might have thought it funny!

Like this one:



That cracked me up!

And who says Christians are singled out?

[eqfan592]

46. Actually, in this particular instance, I do believe it is being applied correctly.

And atheists can have a persecution complex just as much as anybody else from my experience. Just went to read the definition of it just to make sure I had my ducks in a row, and didn't find anything to disagree with my previous statement.

[cbayer]

48. Noting that Christians are being baited and ridiculed in this group is not a persecution complex.

It is a statement of fact. Just look at the most recently posted OP's.

[skepticscott]

60. Now be honest and also acknowledge

that many OPs on this board are intended to bait and ridicule atheists. You know the posters I'm talking about as well as I do.

[eqfan592]

107. No, it wouldn't be.

But he also implied that no such baiting is ever leveled at Muslims and Jews. This is in fact false, and is where said complex comes into play. In fact, I think all religious faiths are regularly called into question by many of us, as we often speak of religion as a whole, not just specific religions. If christianity gets mentioned more than others, it is like because the majority of those with faith in this nation are christian, and they are also the far larger players in the political environment.

[tavalon]

115. Woah, grow a humor bone

Life is too short to be this pissed off.

[ajk2821]

22. Not that confusing to me

I am new to my church and Christianity in general and I have lots of questions about the Bible and religion. Then again so does the husband of my pastor. To me, many of the holidays are ways to foster and build community. That is what we try to do, at least.

All the religious specifics just seem to get in the way sometimes.

[mistertrickster]

25. While you're at it, why don't you demean and ridicule Martin Luther King, Jr,

Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Benjamin Tutu and other people of faith for their silly superstition?

No better time than our high holy day . . . thank you very much.

[darkstar3]

59. One comic here has really put your back up.

I think that's sad. If a four-panel comic can make you this angry, I wouldn't want to run in to you in real life.

[Marrah_G]

146. Since you have decided to spout off on "high holy days"

Why don't you do some research, figure out how those religious days came to be on the days that they are celebrated.

Once you can answer that question, I'll move on to logic question #2.

[LARED]

40. Flamebait on Easter. No surprise nt

[darkstar3]

61. If you think this is the only flamebait posted lately, you're blind.

[tavalon]

117. Not flamebait - gentle teasing on Ostara.

Oh, wait, did you know it was called Ostara many, many centuries before it was coopted by your religion? Actually all religions coopt all sorts of things so yours isn't under fire.

[jimlup]

45. I've been mulling over Dawkin's assertion that "the basic theology of Christianity is barking mad"

This is one interpretation but another is that Christianity is simply an understanding of the sacredness of Human beings along side the natural world.

The problem that I have with Dawkin's interpretation is that it is based on the naive interpretation of Christianity and not a more thoughtful Jungian interpretation which can be constructive (though isn't if reverted back to the dogma as is often the case.)

[Kalidurga]

50. Freakin Hillarious

and kudos to the one that mentioned the moving death date, priceless.

[rug]

52. That second panel shows this guy doesn't really understand what he's mocking.

To do satire, you need a pretty good understanding of what you're trying to ridicule.

Otherwise, you end up beating a scarecrow with a stick. The scarecrow doesn't care and you end up looking foolish and sweaty.

No wonder he remains anonymous.

[SamG]

58. So you will, of course, explain it to us, what the REAL meaning of ..

Jesus dying on the cross is talking about?

I'd love to read your own reading of the Bible on this topic.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..."

What is that all about? Let's read a fully authorized interpretation of those words from a real DU scholar of religion.

[darkstar3]

62. I'll second that...

[rug]

67. It's not about displeasure and it's not about having to.

That's for starters.

For the rest, look it up.

Or stick around and high-five cartoons.

[darkstar3]

69. You mean Jesus didn't die for our sins?

Are you, or are you not, a member of a church which recites the Nicene Creed and includes it in its teachings?

[rug]

71. You were Pentecostal, you can answer that.

The comment was about the inaccurate cartoon.

[darkstar3]

73. You're right, I was, and that's how I know you're wrong.

That, the Nicene creed, and the many times I've investigated the fact that "the cup" would not pass. The second panel of the cartoon is an accurate summation of Christian denominations which recite the Nicene Creed in any of its forms.

Including yours.

If you disagree, then tell me which part of the second panel, specifically, is wrong, because I don't see it. According to these religions:

Humans were created by God.
Humans became sinners.
Sin is displeasing to God, and the wages of sin is death.
Jesus paid that price, and died for all of our sins.
He could only do this by being both man and God.
Thanks to Jesus' sacrifice, we have salvation.
(But somehow, only if you believe that all of that happened.)

This is the Nicene Creed in a nutshell. Where is the inaccuracy? Be specific.

[rug]

76. Post the creed, not the nutshell. I'm not interested in your summary.

Never mind, I'll save you the trouble:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nothing in there suggests, as do you and the cartoon, either that the Crucifixion was because of God's "displeasure" or that he "had to". What part of "for our sake" eludes you?

If this is what you say you were taught, you either were not paying attention or were using a comic book as your text.

[darkstar3]

78. So "for our salvation" has nothing to do with it?

If it was for our salvation, why was that salvation necessary? What would have happened without it?

If you think the Nicene Creed has nothing to do with God's "displeasure" or the need for Jesus' sacrifice, then you clearly weren't paying attention when you learned about "salvation."

[rug]

79. As a matter of fact no, it wasn't necessary.

Sorry the Nicene Creed contradicts your nutshell.

[darkstar3]

80. Wait, you're saying that "our salvation", in the creed, was NOT necessary?

That's gonna be news to your church.

[rug]

82. Returning to the cartoon you're defending, the Crucifixion was not necessary.

[darkstar3]

84. And where in the Bible, the Catechism, or any mainstream church teachings do you find that?

'cause it sure as hell isn't

Catholic
Anglican
Episcopalian
Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
Baptist
Pentecostal

or any flavor mixture thereof.

[rug]

87. Your ignorance is showing.

It was a choice, not a necessity.

[darkstar3]

88. Not true on two counts. The only ignorance here is yours on the topic of "salvation".

I think you might need to study that concept a bit more. Be careful, though, because the study of "salvation" has led to many a believer leaving the faith.

Hmm...maybe that's why you've avoided doing it before...

[rug]

89. I see. You, like the cartoon, believe it was necessary for God, as opposed to, for humanity, to die.

That's an odd god you're attacking, a god with needs.

[darkstar3]

93. And you are avoiding the question. Let's step back and present it properly. What is salvation?

[rug]

95. The question was, Did the second panel present an accurate target for mocking?

[darkstar3]

98. And it is mocking the concept of salvation. That's why you won't talk about it.

[skepticscott]

104. Don't forget the lesson

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

of the psych ward. The discussion need go on only long enough to let sane observers know which is the doctor and which is the patient. Further than that are minutes of your life you'll never get back.

[darkstar3]

105. Hadn't heard it put that way before. Apropos.

[rug]

109. It has no concept of the concept of salvation.

And now you hve closed the circle, arriving nowhere.

[darkstar3]

110. LOL. Show me you know what "salvation" means, as a definition and a concept,

and then show me how this comic has no grasp of that concept. Go on. It's easy. All you have to do is put aside your very nature and post more than a brief and poor attempt at wit.

If your next post doesn't even attempt to deal with the concept of salvation, then I'm not even going to attempt to engage you further. I'll simply recognize, as I should have several posts above, that you've gone into complete, visible, and irreversible denial.

[rug]

111. Since your grasp of this cartoon is better than your grasp of the Nicene Creed, the effort is futile

Speaking of "your very nature", let's see how well you do with disengaging.
;:

[trotsky]

139. Here's what you need to know:

rug's vindictive, petty, and jealous god was not REQUIRED to provide a means to escape its universal condemnation. But by its own grace, it decided to provide that means anyway and we should be oh so very grateful.

No go back and re-read his beating around the bush and see if it makes a little more sense why he's nitpicking your use of one word.

It's very similar how he believes in hell but doesn't believe his god "sends" people there, and refuses to comment beyond that. The technicality he relies on is that people "choose" voluntarily to be separated from his god, and they get their wish by being tortured eternally. Not god's fault they chose that.

[darkstar3]

140. That is a contradictory position.

[trotsky]

144. And that's new for rug?

[Mariana]

96. Rug does have a point.

The crucifixion wasn't necessary. God could have just sent everyone to hell, instead of most people.

[darkstar3]

97. Perhaps, but the second panel recognizes that this would have damned humanity,

so the "point" is lost.

[SamG]

74. Please stop baiting, either give an answer to the question or

move on to another thread.

What is the meaning of the Easter celebration, the meaning of Christ supposedly being crucified on a cross, the meaning of death and resurrection.

Is there a meaning there that was misinterpreted by declaring that God, in the human form of Christ, got himself killed? What is wrong with that?

Oh wait, something about the trinity, father, son holy ghost. More mumbo jumbo for us to try to decipher, and can only be done if we go to church, right?

[rug]

77. If I were baiting, I'd simply cut and paste your post.

[SamG]

83. So your posts are just avoidance and insult, instead.

I understand, fully.

Being asked the meaning of Easter for Christians is a very hard question to answer, especially after one has accused others of misinterpreting the meaning of Easter, and offering not one scintilla of evidence to support such a simple assertion.

Interesting that one self-described Christian would consider an offer for him to define and explain his beliefs "baiting", while that same Christian feels free to accuse others of misinterpreting the meaning of scripture about a significant Christian holy day.

[rug]

86. Not quite. I didn't throw in "mumbo jumbo".

You really should stop using that phyase. It has racist origins.

[SamG]

90. You would prefer abracadabra ?

Whatever word you want to use for magic mythology is fine with me.

Just give me your password and I'll give you mine and we can edit each other's words to your ultimate satisfaction.

Origins and usage

The phrase probably originated from the Mandingo name Maamajomboo, a masked dancer that took part in religious ceremonies. Mungo Park's travel journal, Travels in the Interior of Africa (1795) describes 'Mumbo Jumbo' as a character, complete with "masquerade habit", that Mandinka males would dress up in order to resolve domestic disputes.[1] In the 18th century mumbo jumbo referred to a West African god.

According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:

Mumbo Jumbo is a noun and is the name of a grotesque idol said to have been worshipped by some tribes. In its figurative sense, Mumbo Jumbo is an object of senseless veneration or a meaningless ritual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase)

[rug]

91. I prefer non-racist terms.

From the link:

"First published in 1899, The Story of Little Black Sambo's titular protagonist has parents named "Black Mumbo" and "Black Jumbo"."

[skepticscott]

122. In other words, the ORIGIN of the term, dated long before

that story (which doesn't even USE the term "mumbo-jumbo&quot , is NOT racist. In other words, your post above that the term has "racist origins" was complete bullshit and blatant intellectual dishonesty.

[rug]

123. You have a point. One parent was named only Mumbo, the other only Jumbo.

[skepticscott]

124. Wow, you managed to completely ignore

the fact that the term mumbo-jumbo originated over a century before that story, and had no racist meaning at all when it originated, in direct contradiction to what you claimed.

I'm not sure what's more pathetic..that you apparently have a deep-seeded need to tell such blatant falsehoods, or that you expect anyone to be deceived by them.

Rounds are over on the psych ward. You'll have to roll your eyes to someone else.

[rug]

125. Besides your dismissiveness of racist terms, you have a dismissiveness toward psychiatric patients.

Keep going. It's quite revealing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024&version=NIV

[rug]

129. Read on.

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

It happened in this way to fulfill the promise. The promise did not have to be made in the first place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. But this shows the cartoon quote to be a valid part of Christian discussion

if the New Testament itself says Jesus had to suffer. If God painted himself into a corner several hundred years earlier with a promise to sacrifice an aspect of himself (which, let's face it, you have to torture the Old Testament language quite a lot to believe), we still have a vital part of Christian scripture of which the cartoon gave a paraphrase. There's Hebrews 9 :

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9&version=NIV

When you can find tons of discussion on whether Jesus had to be sacrificed for the sins of humans, with many concluding that it was necessary, it's silly to dismiss a cartoon as having no understanding.

[rug]

131. Read back.

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

He offered himself; he didn't have to.

It would be a strange god that painted himself into a corner, particularly one that exists everywhere simultaneously.

Finally, as this demonstrates, the Crucifixion did not occr because of God's "displeasure".

The cartoon is bunk and bunk makes poor propaganda,

[trotsky]

145. Could we receive forgiveness for our sins if Jesus had not been crucified? n/t

[rug]

147. Ask Dawkins.

[trotsky]

149. I'm asking you.

Very simple question for someone as well-versed in your church's theology as you are, isn't it?

[rug]

150. I'm telling you.

Ask Dawkins.

It is a very simple question. Anyone who makes a second career attacking theology should be sufficiently well-versed to answer your utterly sincere question.

Let me know what he says.

[trotsky]

151. Dawkins cannot possibly understand your church's particular theology better than you.

You should answer.

Or just admit you're afraid to, because that's patently obvious.

[rug]

152. Stepping over a pile of shit, rather than walking through it, is not fear.

I so fear answering a disingenous trotsky post.

[trotsky]

153. OK, so I asked him. He was up really early over in the UK and I've got his direct phone number.

He gave me an answer. I'll tell you what it is, but first, you give me one so I can compare. It's a very simple question. No tricks involved. Why are you so afraid to answer but instead have to fall back into your same old habits of personal smears and one-liners?

[rug]

154. Why do you ask disingenuous questions?

[darkstar3]

155. The question was amazingly straightforward. Your tapdancing, not so much.

[rug]

156. Straightforward and disingenuous.

Tell me you're asking a sincere question and I'll post your answer.

Come on, you can do it.

The answer is already typed and on the notepad, just a click away.

[trotsky]

157. What's disingenuous about it?

I'm asking about what you and your church believe. Why are you so afraid to answer?

[rug]

158. See #156.

[trotsky]

159. That doesn't answer my question OR why you think it is disingenuous.

Why won't you just answer the question?

[rug]

161. Why won't you just say it's a sincere question?

Thousands of people ask them daily.

Your inability or unwillingness to say so is unsurprising given your history.

That answers the second part of your title.

Just say it's a sincere question and I will, in defiance of all observable phenomena, take you at your word and post the answer.

[trotsky]

163. Why are you assuming it's not?

I do not appreciate your insinuations and attacks.

Post the answer. What are you afraid of?

[rug]

165. It is not an assumption; it's a conclusion drawn from evidence.

"What are you afraid of?"

Are you in fourth grade?

Why do you find it hard to type "This is a sincere question"?

[trotsky]

167. Why do you find it so hard to just answer?

Is it a power trip thing or something?

If I were truly being disingenuous, I'd simply lie and say, "Yup, it's sincere," wouldn't I?

Why are you requiring me to chant some magic words before you will answer a simple question?

It is really interesting watching you squirm and think you have some sort of right to put demands on those who ask a simple theological question.

[rug]

168. Game over. The question's been answered.

You are as genuine a republican budget..

[eqfan592]

169. Wow, a dodge and an insult all wrapped into one.

I'm sure that added loads of credibility to your point, rug.

[saras]

53. The belief that mocking will help you get along with someone is a religious belief that baffles me

... it clearly has no supporting evidence in the real world, nor in any of the world's literatures. But, irrationally and destructively, it persists.

[SamG]

55. Just why would you place such limits upon who you can "get along with"?

If someone challenges your beliefs, challenges your assumptions, are they not doing you a favor?

They are asking you to substantiate those beliefs with real and factual evidence. If you have none, and feel offended that you do not have any, that's not the problem of the atheists who challenged your beliefs, now, is it? He or she is not the problem, are they? If you choose to feel offended, when someone questions your assumptions, that's YOUR choice.

[SamG]

54. No, fellow Muslim cartoon character, you do not ...

have that right.

The Hair, (rabbit) and egg was introduced into the culture of Christians' Easter much later than the time of the alleged hanging of Jesus on the cross.

"Easter” was likely derived from Eostre, the name of the Anglo-Saxon lunar goddess, as was as the name for the female hormone estrogen. Eostre’s feast day was held on the first full moon following the vernal equinox — a similar calculation as is used for Easter among Western Christians. On this date the goddess Eostre is believed by her followers to mate with the solar god, conceiving a child who would be born 9 months later on Yule, the winter solstice which falls on December 21st.
Two of Eostre’s most important symbols were the hare (both because of its fertility and because ancient people saw a hare in the full moon) and the egg, which symbolized the growing possibility of new life. Each of these symbols continues to play an important role in modern celebrations of Easter."

http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm

[Leontius]

70. This has been shown as not a reliable bit of information on another thread.

[skepticscott]

72. To, which, of course, you provide no link

Why don't you show us how this was "shown" not to be reliable?

[SamG]

85. As far as religious belief goes, links are not needed.

Belief is all you need.

[Leontius]

94. Here

[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/121818084|

[darkstar3]

99. Well, that was a failure to substantiate on quite a level.

[Leontius]

100. I found post #32 in that thread quite good at pointing out the bs

from that website.

[darkstar3]

101. You realize you linked to this thread, right?

You're saying, in a ridiculous manner, that you think post #32 here answers anything?

Why did you even bother to post this?

[Leontius]

102. The link works fine for me

links right to yesterdays thread about Easter not this one.

[darkstar3]

103. Well now, that sounds like a bug.

Hmm...it was a caching bug...interesting.

[trotsky]

160. You mean the post from the banned disruptor?

Oh, I see.

[Leontius]

162. Muriel Volestrangler Is a banned disruptor? I did not know that, what was the

reason a host was banned as a disruptor? Or are you just doing the same thing you usually do and hope nobody checks your post out for veracity.

[trotsky]

164. I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel?

What exactly are you going on about and why are you making this personal? Can't you make a point without flinging an insult? Is that what Jesus would do?

[tavalon]

118. Thank you. We Pagans like to be recognized on this holy day as well

It isn't our biggest one, though, and to the Christian's it seems it is, so I say, let 'em have it and may the Goddess have mercy on their souls when their children ask what bunny rabbits and eggs have to do with crucifixion and rising from the dead?

[smokey nj]

136. Confused the hell out of me when I was a kid.

[tavalon]

137. But I bet you were a smart kid and kept your mouth shut

More candy that way!

[smokey nj]

138. Peeps were, and still are, my favorite.

I'm also quite fond of the pastel egg-shaped Whoppers.

[tavalon]

112. Tee hee

It's not the least bit confusing to us Pagans. It was one of many holidays stolen by the Christian sect. It was Ostara, a fertility holiday. We have lots of those. We fucking love 'em. Eggs, fertility, bunnys, fertility, Jesus, overlay.

[Marrah_G]

166. Sex and Omelets :)

I think we definitely have it better!