 |
|
|
|
 The authors note that Jesus jokes have become popular just since the 1970s.
November 10th, 2012
10:00 PM ET
My Take: What all those Jesus jokes tell us
By Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey, Special to CNN Did you ever hear the one about Jesus being Mexican? Well, he was bilingual; he was constantly harassed by the government; and his first name was Jesus. Or, perhaps Jesus was Irish? He loved a good story; he never kept a steady job; and his last request was for a drink. Or maybe it’s possible that Jesus was Californian? He never cut his hair; he was always walking around barefoot; and he started a new religion. You may not have heard these Jesus jokes, but you’ve heard others. They represent a comedic trend that has animated the United States since the 1970s. More and more comedy gimmicks hit on Jesus, his ethnicity and his relationship to politics. Laughing with (and at) the Lord is now fodder for major motion pictures, barroom comedy tours, graphic novels, t-shirts and bumper stickers.
How is it that a figure sacred to so many Americans has become the punch line of so many jokes? And why is it acceptable to poke fun at Jesus when other sacred figures are deemed off limits or there is hell to pay for mocking them? The explanations are as numerous as the laughs. Immigration shifts from the 1960s changed the ethnic and religious faces of the country so no tradition dominates today. The Christian right made such a moral spectacle of itself that it practically begged to be mocked. The emergence of “spiritual, but not religious” sensibilities left many Americans willing to denounce or laugh about traditional faith. The public rise of agnosticism, atheism, and secularism led to aggressive mockery as a form of persuasion. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter If we pause to consider why we’re laughing, we find that the comic bits delve into some of our thorniest and unresolved problems. The jokes reveal much more about us than they do Jesus. They speak to how our society has changed, how it hasn’t, and what we’re obsessed with. The first public jokes about Jesus were heard in the 1970s. There had been religious jokes before this, but none about Jesus had become widely popular because organized Christianity held such authority. As the economic recession and problems of urban decay collided with civil rights exhaustion and new immigration, however, some Jesus jokes emerged. Archie Bunker on “All in the Family” was the white racist and misogynist you loved to hate and hated to love. On one occasion, his son-in-law challenged Bunker’s rampant anti-Semitism with the claim, "Jesus was Jewish." Archie shot back immediately: "Only on his mother's side." The “All in the Family” spin off “Good Times” featured a black family that lives in an inner-city housing project, probably Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. On the show's second episode, the oldest son J. J. astounded everyone by painting Jesus as black. The younger son loves it, and says he learned all about Christ’s blackness from the local Nation of Islam. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories As the family debates whether this black Jesus should be hung on the wall in place of their white Jesus, they “miraculously” receive $140 from the Internal Revenue Service. Feeling blessed, the family placed the painting on its living room wall, and the elated J. J. shouted his tagline, "Dyno-mite!” From the 1980s to the present, the number of prominent Jesus jokes has multiplied like loaves and fishes: • In “Talladega Nights,” Ricky Bobby and his family debated which Jesus to pray to (“baby Jesus in golden fleece diapers,” “grown-up Jesus,” “ninja Jesus”). Their overall hope is that Jesus will help them continue their extravagant lifestyle. • “South Park” featured Jesus as a weak-kneed host of a local talk show who boxes the devil. • “Family Guy” had Jesus perform magic tricks that wowed his ancient audience. • “The Colbert Report” placed a gun in Christ’s hand and had him defend conservatives against the liberal “War on Easter.” • “Saturday Night Live” let Jesus chastise Tim Tebow for using the Lord’s name in vain and ended the bit by declaring that the Mormons have it right. One unforgettable scene in the rather forgettable recent film “21 Jump Street” may explain why Jesus has become such a joke. Before Jonah Hill’s character returns to high school as an undercover cop, he prays to a small, crucified “Korean Jesus.” Down on his knees, he says: “Hey Korean Jesus, I don’t know if you only cater to Korean Christians or if you even exist, no offense. I’m just really freaked out about going back to high school. It was just so f***ing hard the first time. … I just really don’t want to f*** this up. Sorry for swearing so much. The end? I don’t really know how to end the prayer.” The hilarity of the moment only makes sense in our time. Hill's character is unchurched and agnostic, but wants spiritual power to guide him. We can laugh at how agnosticism and being “spiritual, but not religious,” leave him uncertain of what to say, how to say it, and even how to end. We can also laugh at how ethnic factors color his approach. By wondering if Korean Jesus cares only about Korean problems, Hill pokes fun at the issue which was made a media spectacle in 2008, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could be heard preaching that “Jesus was a poor black man” as part of his support for Barack Obama. What good is a God who only cares for those who look like him? The Jesus jokes not only reveal how tangled our religious, racial, economic and political positions have become, but also how many outlets there are for the jokes. In these tense times, when presidential hopefuls point fingers at one another and families unfriend one another over political and cultural differences, laughing may be one way to talk about the problems without killing one another. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey. soundoff (5,746 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Next »Post a comment
« Previous entryChurch of England names new archbishop of Canterbury
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Editor’s note: 
My take? I think humor is a way for us to relate to things. Jokes tie us together. The same thing is discussed in detail in popular culture. Take Mass Effect 3. One of the random conversations you can hear is between Joker, the pilot of your ship, and EDI, the ship's AI, discussing humor. Joker tells a joke about a Krogan soldier and a Salarian specialist. After the punchline, EDI discusses how the joke plays on stereotypes (Salarians being weak scientists and Krogan being brutish morons). Joker simply says: It's also one of the few jokes you will hear both Salarians and Krogan tell. Jokes rely on stereotypes and perceived weaknesses sure, but in the end, they also bring peoples together. The point being, if they can both laugh at the their foibles and follies, there is hope they can one day mend the divide between them.
I don't know if there is a God. I believe in science and the Big Bang. I don't know if Jesus was what he claimed to be, if he ever really existed. But I do know this: The jokes about him being Latino, Black, Irish, or a hippie make me laugh, and they make most of the Christians I know laugh. They bridge a gap. So why does it matter? We can joke about Mohammed, Buddha, Thor, Anubis, Zeus. In the end, I have to think most believers think they are just as funny as us "infidels" do. If we can get over this pompous belief that our views are the right views and learn to laugh at some of the things that, most of us will freely admit, sound a little nonsensical, the world will be a better place.
A Muslim dies and finds himself before the Pearly Gates.
He is very excited, as all his life he has longed to meet the Prophet Muhammad. Having arrived at the Gates of Heaven, he meets a man with a beard.
'Are you Muhammad?' he asks.
'No, my son. I am Peter. Muhammad is higher up.
And he points to a ladder that rises into the clouds.
Delighted that Muhammad should be higher than Peter.
he climbs the ladder in great strides,
climbs through the clouds coming to a room where he meets another bearded man.
He asks again, 'Are you Muhammad?
'No, I am Moses. Muhammad is higher still.
Exhausted, but with a heart full of joy.
he continues to climb the ladder and, yet again,
he discovers an even larger room
where he meets another man with a beard.
Full of hope, he asks again, 'Are you Muhammad?
'No, I am Jesus...You will find Muhammad higher up.
Muhammad higher than Jesus! The poor man can hardly contain his delight and climbs and climbs, ever higher. Once again, he reaches a larger room where he meets a man with a beard and repeats his question:
'Are you Muhammad?' he gasps,
as he is, by now, totally out of breath from all his climbing.
'No, my son...I am God. But you look exhausted.
Would you like a coffee?'
'Yes, please, my Lord'
God looks behind him, claps his hands and calls out:
'Hey, Muhammad, two coffees!'
Awesome!!!
It speaks a lot towards the maturity of modern Christianity
that Christians quietly and peacefully abide the mean spirited jokes and comments heaped upon their beliefs
While Atheists spout obscenities at the peaceful faithful
and Muslims burn and murder at the very thought of making fun of their religion
Christianity grew up, it's time for the rest of you too as well.
Non-believers, of whatever the prevalent belief happens to be, have been enduring worse than mockery for centuries.
You must know some really awful atheists. However, what you should be aware of is there is no organized group of atheists. Not all react the same way to the beliefs of others. I personally am willing to let anyone believe anything they wish, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs or the actions generated by those beliefs on me or anyone else. The biggest issue I have with organized religion is proselytizing – if I wanted to join your faith, I'd come to your church. My home is my castle – too bad I can't maintain an alligator-filled moat.
CiC, Evolved maybe; not grown-up. Pastors living the high-life on the money from their sheep, priests abusing children, fundies wanting everyone else to conform to their interpretation of a guide to life as defined by their religion.
"It speaks a lot towards the maturity of modern Christianity"
You are wrong. Religion-based bigotry use religious teachings to justify discrimination against Native Americans, African Americans, minority religious groups, woman and interracial couples. Most people know that, historically, religion has been used to justify discrimination against women, religious minorities and people of color. The point is that religion-based bigotry has been a common denominator of injustice toward many groups in American society’s past. When given a chance, many people will see the underlying historical pattern of using religious teachings and beliefs to justify harmful discrimination. History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history.
"Christianity grew up"? If that were true, it would have vanished in a puff of logic.
If you grew up, then why do you still believe in something equally as non-sensical as the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus? No, you haven't grown up; you've just mastered denial.
Christians are anything but peaceful and quiet.
So to sum up your post: Christians good, everyone else bad.
A teabagger's dream vacation is a trip to the Barbed Wire Museum in Kansas.
Anyone who is born Black (almost black?) and Jewish, looks like a hippie, wears long hair, wanders homeless, preaching wisdom and claiming to be a king and a God, claiming his mother is a virgin, and that he can walk on water, would be the brunt of many jokes. He would also require video and scientific evidence to back his claims. Would anyone get away with putting God as his father on his birth certificate? Imagine what would happen if Donald Trump got wind of it? But the jokes about Jesus can be expected. Times have changed. What was normal back then might only pass for normal in San Fransisco, or in parts of NYC.
Turn in to FOXNEWS to hear my Word.
CNN is the Devil's channel.
'cos they're so good at polls and unbiased opinion. ha-ha
Tell me that was a joke, I am glad that President Obama won the re-election. I can continue to be on welfare for alteast another four years and collect my unemployment benefits without any discrimination.This will be my consti/tutional right barring all the the jokes about jesus aside.
The public rise of agnosticism, atheism, and secularism led to aggressive mockery as a form of persuasion
- Is mockery a form of persuasion?
- Why not just use evidence?
Mockery and personal attacks is what a person engages in when they have nothing substantive to say. The best they can do in the situation is just call the other person names.
What does that say about the atheist argument? Is mockery the best they can do? Why?
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"Salvatore" degenerates to:
"Douglas" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"Thinker23" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
"pervert alert" is a degenerate;
This troll is not a christian.
Chad, pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. What a hypocrite.
nothing substantative to say?
you're a fine one to talk, chad
Mockery is not a valid logical argument, no. But, it can be an effective persuasive tool. In fact it's been used for centuries against nonbelievers.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." (Psalm 14:1)
I mock no-one's belief. I do not, however, feel the need to "believe" along with them.
@TrollAlert,
I wouldn't consider Chad a Troll. He actually seems to believe what says and will try to defend it. Trolls generally are hit and run types, just out to get a rise out of people.
I see a lot more hate-spew coming from you "believers" than from the atheists/secularists/non-believers.
Check out the Munk debate Hitchens vs Blair "Is Religion a force for good in the world?". The problem with the likes of Chad he only defines religion as Christian cults and disregards the rest. A very narrow view that he will defend no matter how much he has to twist the facts, lame. Chad you ignore the best atheists can do because that is what you want to do.
"you do the same thing" seems to be the common response:
A. "You are equally poor in constructing arguments" is a crappy response as it acknowledges your own failure to construct a good argument and does nothing to address it.
B. On the contrary, the theistic argument is very sound and data driven on the other hand It is demonstrated again and again that atheist argument is typically emotional and ad-hominem.
A man sees what he wants to see, is that what you mean by is mockery the best they can do? You ignore all the learned writings on the death of god or the impossibility of god. Strange in that you manage to cut paste and post all sorts of cherry picked material to back your positions.
@John not the Baptist "You ignore all the learned writings on the death of god or the impossibility of god. Strange in that you manage to cut paste and post all sorts of cherry picked material to back your positions."
@Chad "such as.. what?
I have read "The God Delusion"
I have listened to dozens of debates, Hitchens, Ludemann , Ehrman, Croissan, Avalos. I know the positions (10x better than you I'm sure)
what information am I not considering?
Chad, please.
You seem to be looking for another of your long winded arguements, why?, you already know that whatever evidence was provided by the other side you would ignore as usual. You win, OK, feel better!
@Chad,
You misunderstood my point.
My argument here was: "Mockery is not a valid logical argument, no. But, it can be an effective persuasive tool."
My evidence: It has been used effectively for centuries against nonbelievers.
"The problem with the likes of Chad he only defines religion as Christian cults and disregards the rest."
=>I am not interested in, nor do I think it is an effort that should be expended, to defend anything other than Judeo-Christian belief system..
How exactly is that a problem?
@ME II, the fact that mockery exists in the bible does not make it an effective persuasion tool any more than the fact that adultery exists in the bible makes that acceptable conduct.
You need to stop looking at the bible as a "owners manual", or a philosophy for improving the human race. It is a narrative which describes the relationship between God and humanity, it's fundamental message is that we are estranged and incapable of "good".
Every word is accurate, in context. Ignore context, and one is just making it suit ones own agenda.
@Chad,
slow day at work today? By the way, this is hilarious:
"the theistic argument is ... data driven"
Thanks for the laugh!
Chad may have come up with an important number. I'm not sure what Chad's counting, but it's a pretty big number.
@Atheist " but there are no witnesses of his (Jesus's) continued existence. I think we need support of that part of the claim before the rest can be believed."
@Chad "????
only 2.2 billion... what number were you looking for?
So you read the God Delusion by Dawkins, good for you and your ego jumps to the conclusion that makes you 10 times more informed than others, typical. Try...
Death of God Vahanian
Impossibility of God Martin & Monnier
God is not Great Hitchens
Feath of God Altizer & Hamilton
Anything from Bertrand Russell
etc.
If you have tuned into the debates you may find that the atheist side has managed to carry the day when it was held in a neutral setting, not at a highly prejudiced, venue.
@Chad,
Again, you misunderstood my point.
It is not the fact that it exists in the Bible that makes it effective. It is the fact that the quote is used so often in order to mock nonbelievers, that shows its effectiveness.
Other evidence of effectiveness of mockery, look at the propaganda from Nazi Germany about Jews (I'm not making a comparison to Christianity or the Bible), or look at the portrayals of blacks in certain sectors in pre-Civil rights US, e.g. Sambos, black-face actors, lawn-jockey-ornatments, etc., or look at any ethnic jokes in general.
"You need to stop looking at the bible as a 'owners manual', or a philosophy for improving the human race."
First, "You need to stop" telling me what I "need" to do.
Second, you don't know how I view the Bible, so please stop building your staw-men.
Third, how do you know what the Bible is? Because it says so?
@ME II "It is not the fact that it exists in the Bible that makes it effective. It is the fact that the quote is used so often in order to mock nonbelievers, that shows its effectiveness."
@Chad "no, frequent use of something doesnt mean it is effective.
mockery is not effective, because it is not based on fact, on evidence. It is a retreat to emotional ad-hominem when nothing better can be constructed.
=====
@ME II "Third, how do you know what the Bible is? Because it says so?"
@Chad "It is a narrative, because it is a narrative. That's the genre.
How do you know that "The rise and fall of the roman empire" is a history book. Because, it is.. analyze the authors intent and the contents. simple..
Chad,10X better than you I'm sure, a little back hand mocckery there, practice what you preach. Such an outstanding human being resorting to such behaviour and a christian to boot. Hypocrisy, not Chad.
@Chad,
This grows tiresome. Persuasive does not mean logically valid. It means convincing to others. As I started with "Mockery is not a valid logical argument." But it can be very persuasive to some people.
Actually, I think narrative is a style, not a genre, but whatever, fine, the Bible is a narrative, a story, a tale. you convinced me (and without any evidence either.)
Chad,10X better than you I'm sure, a little back hand mockery there, practice what you preach. Such an outstanding human being resorting to such behaviour and a christian to boot. Hypocrisy, not Chad.
@John, what information am I not considering?
@ME II, to be clear, the bible IS a historically accurate description of the interaction of the God of Israel with humanity.The bible is NOT fiction.
It is fiction so far, Chad, at least until any claim made by any religion regarding interface with a higher being to date can be credibly proven. Of course I don't expect this to ever happen. But certainly, you've tried many times, but have always failed to provide credible proof of such.
@mama k "It is fiction so far, Chad, at least until any claim made by any religion regarding interface with a higher being to date can be credibly proven. Of course I don't expect this to ever happen. But certainly, you've tried many times, but have always failed to provide credible proof of such."
=>1. No historical detail in the bible has ever been proven to be incorrect
2. The ONLY way that the supernatural events recorded in the bible can be claimed to be fiction a-priori, is if you can demonstrate that God does NOT exist.
3. If you can not prove that the God of Israel does not exist, then you need to be open to the possibility that the supernatural has occurred, and can not discredit supernatural events a-priori.
so, if you claim that the supernatural is impossible, then you need to prove the God of Israel does not exist.
I should just leave it alone, I guess.
@Chad,
This may depend on what you mean by "proven", but there is evidence that some events in the Bible are historically inaccurate. Here's a few.
Gen 1
Birds didn't exist before land animals. Fruit-bearing (flowering) plants didn't exist before land animals. The Earth didn't exist before stars or the sun.
Gen 6
There is no evidence for a global flood and it would likely be very evident.
Joshua 10:13
If the sun "stood still" for "about a full day" it more than likely would have been recorded by humans and the cataclysmic results would have shown in the geologic record.
Nativity
Was Jesus born before the death of King Herod (Matthew) or after (Luke)?
Chad: "1. No historical detail in the bible has ever been proven to be incorrect"
I don't buy that, Chad. But actually, that matters not for what we are mainly talking about. Because as equally, if not more, we can easily say that: no assertion of contact with a higher being claimed in the bible has every been proven to be true.
Chad: "2. The ONLY way that the supernatural events recorded in the bible can be claimed to be fiction a-priori, is if you can demonstrate that God does NOT exist."
Not true on more than one level, Chad. First, one can equally say that there are no means, that would seriously be deemed credible, by which supernatural events asserted and recorded in the bible can be proven to be non-fiction. Therefore, it is reasonable to highly suspect not only all assertions of such supernatural events, but of the particular validity of the god of israel altogether.
Chad: "3. If you can not prove that the God of Israel does not exist, then you need to be open to the possibility that the supernatural has occurred, and can not discredit supernatural events a-priori."
The part is OK, Chad. It is always good to be open to things, I agree.
Chad: "so, if you claim that the supernatural is impossible, then you need to prove the God of Israel does not exist."
Lol. First of all, I do not claim that the supernatural is impossible. That goes along with being open in your #3. You should try more of that. But more importantly, there's no need to refute a poor assertion, Chad. Because the bible and its stories have been the assertion since they were first written and assembled. And since then, it and it's followers have failed to give any reasonable proof of the supernatural claims made, and until they do, if ever, their/your claim is just that – only an unproven claim. Others I'm sure would refute them – but it's just as telling to let them speak for themselves as rehashed iron-age folklore. When the most base foundation of such a religion is something that came to us from only writing and stories where already so unstable over time, then you have to wonder about what is built atop it, Chad. Christianity would have proved more convincing if it had completely pretended to be something brand new and unrelated to the OT foundation that is the most suspect folklore of all.
@mama k "I don't buy that, Chad. But actually, that matters not for what we are mainly talking about. Because as equally, if not more, we can easily say that: no assertion of contact with a higher being claimed in the bible has every been proven to be true."
@Chad "A. Nothing in the bible has ever been proven to be false.
B. I dont make an assertion that God can be proven.
=========
@Chad: "2. The ONLY way that the supernatural events recorded in the bible can be claimed to be fiction a-priori, is if you can demonstrate that God does NOT exist."
@mama k "Not true on more than one level, Chad. First, one can equally say that there are no means, that would seriously be deemed credible, by which supernatural events asserted and recorded in the bible can be proven to be non-fiction. Therefore, it is reasonable to highly suspect not only all assertions of such supernatural events, but of the particular validity of the god of israel altogether."
@Chad "you are merely re-stating that God cant be proven, and again, I dont make the assertion that His existence can be proven.
What I do correctly assert, is that you may not reject the supernatural as a live option a-priori unless you can prove that God does not exist.
Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option.
=======
@Mama K "the bible and its stories have been the assertion since they were first written and assembled. And since then, it and it's followers have failed to give any reasonable proof of the supernatural claims made, and until they do..."
@Chad "origin of the universe, origin of life, fine tuning, fossil record, empty tomb."
more of the same right? The AU (Atheist University) debate team motto: "that's all nonsense!!!"
I can't believe you people are wasting your time with this pathetic piece of stunted slime known as Chad.
I thought you were smarter than that.
Don't feed this twisted filthy troll. Stop feeding these idiots and they'll stop coming here.
"origin of the universe, origin of life, fine tuning, fossil record, empty tomb" Yes, the evidence is overwhelming that the God of Abraham exists and begat his only Son in a young virgin ... wait, is it the origins, the fossil record, or fine tuning that tells us that God is male and can impregnate?
Ah, it is clear now. The Bible is the only clear and relevant thing. The Universe must be seen in the context of the Bible which does not itself need explanation. Everything points to it, not just the fossil record, but everything. All the symmetries of nature are clearly revealed in it. It shines with an inner light. My hand seems transparent when I touch it. No! Stop! It's revealing too much ...
@Chad,
What is your response to my previous post?
You said, "I dont make an assertion that God can be proven."
Perhaps you mean the 'assertion that God has been proven', because it would be simple for God to be proven, well supported by evidence anyway. If He exists, He just needs to reveal himself and submit to verification. A few photos, finger prints(?), a couple of miracles, and voila, hard evidence.
What you are asserting, in effect, is that God exists. But you are trying to avoid the 'burden of proof' for making such a claim, by this rephrasing.
You said, "Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option."
This is logically incorrect. The supernatural is possible or not without God.
If the supernatural is possible (S), then perhaps God is possible (G), but perhaps not.
I.E.: if S then (G or notG)
However, if notS then notG, is true, I think.
What you are saying, by "Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option," is if notG then notS, which is not true. "The supernatural" may be possible without God (the God of Israel).
You said, "origin of the universe, origin of life, fine tuning, fossil record, empty tomb."
It is not nonsense, or not all of it anyway, but is not evidence of God or the supernatural.
@ME II 'What is your response to my previous post?"
@Chad "missed it.."
=====
@ME II You said, "I dont make an assertion that God can be proven."
Perhaps you mean the 'assertion that God has been proven', because it would be simple for God to be proven, well supported by evidence anyway. If He exists, He just needs to reveal himself and submit to verification. A few photos, finger prints(?), a couple of miracles, and voila, hard evidence."
@Chad "1. I dont make an assertion that God can be proven, nor do I make the assertion that God has been proven.
2. I do make the assertion that the evidence clearly supports the premise that God exists
3. "Submit to verification" LOL
4. Hard evidence: origin of the universe, fine tuning, origin of life, fossil record, resurrection of Jesus Christ, personal experience.
=========
@ME II "What you are asserting, in effect, is that God exists. But you are trying to avoid the 'burden of proof' for making such a claim, by this rephrasing. You said, "Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option."
This is logically incorrect. The supernatural is possible or not without God. If the supernatural is possible (S), then perhaps God is possible (G), but perhaps not. I.E.: if S then (G or notG) However, if notS then notG, is true, I think.
What you are saying, by "Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option," is if notG then notS, which is not true. "The supernatural" may be possible without God (the God of Israel)."
@Chad "1. I do make a claim that God exists, and I do provide evidence (you may not personally find that evidence compelling, but it IS evidence). As such I do NOT avoid the burden of proof for my claim.
2. You are not understanding the purpose of my statement: ""Unless you prove God does not exist, the supernatural remains a live option.""
which is this: Atheists can not make an a-priori claim that the supernatural is impossible, unless they disprove the existence of the God of Israel
- for the supernatural to be impossible, no supernatural entity can exist.
- God of Israel is a supernatural entity
- therefor, for the supernatural to be impossible, the God of can not exist
and I owe you answers on your Genesis questions...
"@Chad "1. I do make a claim that God exists, and I do provide evidence (you may not personally find that evidence compelling, but it IS evidence). "
Whaaaat????
Chad. "Nothing in the bible has ever been proven to be false."
That is not a true statement, but presuming it is – the same can be said for the myths of Odin, Zeus, etc. so why do you disbelieve those myths but not your own?
@Chad,
"2. I do make the assertion that the evidence clearly supports the premise that God exists"
"4. Hard evidence: origin of the universe, fine tuning, origin of life, fossil record, resurrection of Jesus Christ, personal experience."
Obviously, we disagree on the validity/existence of your "evidence".
"Atheists can not make an a-priori claim that the supernatural is impossible, unless they disprove the existence of the God of Israel"
First, I would say that I don't think anyone is claiming the supernatural is "impossible", just that there is no evidence of it.
Second, your order of precedence, if that's the right term, seems off. Basically, if someone makes a claim that the supernatural is impossible and can prove it, logically, then God would be proven impossible as well, since He is supposedly supernatural.
- The supernatural is impossible (this is a premise. I'm not claiming it's true.)
- God is supernatural
- Therefore, God is impossible
i.e. One doesn't need to specifically disprove God, if one can, in general, disprove the supernatural.
"The supernatural is impossible (this is a premise. I'm not claiming it's true.)"
your first premise cant (by definition) be demonstrated to be correct, so your deduction must necessarily fail.
Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true.
The same crap over and over and over.
Hey Chad, the fact that the supernatural hasn't been disproven is completely fucking irrelevant. The fact remains, until you can prove there is a supernatural, there is absolutely no justification to posit it in the first place. Do you automatically posit the existence of everything that hasn't been disproven? I realize that you will ignore that last question, but I figured I'll ask anyway so there can be another example of your complete dishonesty.
Chad – "4. Hard evidence: origin of the universe, "
Lol. Try no evidence, Chad.
@Chad,
A valid logic argument is constructed in such a way that if the premises are true then the conclusion must follow. A valid logic argument does not mean, by itself, that the conclusion is true.
Valid, but untrue, logical argument:
- Gods are immortal
- Socrates is a God
- Therefore, Socrates is immortal
Valid and true argument:
- Men are mortal
- Socrates is a man
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal
All I was saying is that logically it is not necessary to disprove God in order to disprove the supernatural. If one can disprove the supernatural, then God will also be disproven as a logical consequence of the supernatural being disproven.
@Chad,
p.s. I was not claiming the conclusion, "God is impossible" was a true statement. (does that help?)
@ME II "All I was saying is that logically it is not necessary to disprove God in order to disprove the supernatural. If one can disprove the supernatural, then God will also be disproven as a logical consequence of the supernatural being disproven."
@Chad "that is a true statement, and it also shows why the statement "The supernatural is impossible " is not valid as a premise.
@Chad – "that is a true statement, and it also shows why the statement "The supernatural is impossible " is not valid as a premise."
ME II (a few lines up) – "First, I would say that I don't think anyone is claiming the supernatural is "impossible"
translation – Chad falls back to a previous argument that no longer exists to regroup and rework a different argument.
you are missing the point.. a premise must be true, otherwise the deduction fails.
@Chad,
You are missing the point. I was not offering a "proof", I was merely showing a logically constructed argument to show that your statement was logically invalid. i.e. it is not necessary to disprove God in order to disprove the supernatural.
"The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise, [not that it's definitive at all.])
As I said, I agree that your argument is logically constructed, I am just questioning the validity of the premise to begin with.
If you can demonstrate the truth of the premise"The supernatural is impossible " ,then you're all set, you will have proved that God doesnt exist
@Chad,
Obviously
@ME II
Good job, the moronic emoticons from Chad is a telltale sign of a realization of his ignorance, and that he will continue dishonest idiocy in order to avoid conceding he is wrong.
Oh come on. The reason for telling Jesus jokes is that they are funny and harmless. Like this one:
Moses and Jesus are out playing golf one day, and they come to a particularly difficult shot across a small lake. Moses asks Jesus how he is going to play it, and Jesus says that he's going to use a 7 iron. Moses advises him against that particular club, but Jesus says, "I once saw Arny Palmer make a shot like this with the 7 iron, and if Arny can do it, well then, of course, I can too." So Jesus shoots with a 7 iron, and the ball goes right into the lake. Jesus asks Moses to be a pal and part the waters for him. "On all right", says Moses, and he parts the waters so that Jesus can go in an get his ball. When he comes back, Moses says, "Well I hope you learned your lesson. Maybe you'll rethink which club to use." Jesus says that he's going to try again with the 7 iron, again stating that if Any can do it, then he can too. So Moses says, "Fine. If the ball goes in the water this time, I'm not going to part the waters for you!" Jesus tries again with the 7 iron, and sure enough, it goes into the water. So Jesus steps out onto the surface of the lake and starts looking beneath the surface for his ball. While he's looking, two other players come up to Moses, and seeing this long-haired guy standing on the surface of the lake looking around, they ask Moses, "Who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?" to which Moses answers, "No, Any Palmer!"
So it is ok to make fun of Jesus but not that pervert the prophet Mohammad?
So it is ok to make fun of Mohammad but not that pervert Jesus?
@ American
Feel free to tell all the Muhammed jokes you want.
No "American"... its fine to make fun of each of them. And you. And me. I'm an engineer and I laugh at jokes about myself and other engineers all the time. Do you know the difference between and introverted and extraverted engineer is? The Extravert looks at your shoes during the conversation!
It's funny because it pokes fun at a stereotype that is usually pretty true. Most engineers, myself included, are a little nerdy, bookish, aloof... the joke pokes fun at it. It's funny. It's a sign of maturity to laugh at yourself this way. If Jesus was 1/2 the man we believe, if Mohammed was, chances are good they'd laugh too. They may even say: You forgot this...
What did Mohammed say to Jesus?
"I said no wine or blood, sheesh."
This shallow article is as ignorant as are the people who think these jokes are funny. Not because anyone is offended or threatened by such stupidity, but because the jokes depend upon an ignorant audience who has no idea what Christianity is about in order for them to work. What the jokes say about us is how uneducated we have become.
I was a christian for 30 years and I think these jokes are hilarious. What I don't find hilarious, but quite embarrassing, is that I believed the scam for 30 years.
Did Jesus believe in astro-evolution like NASA???
http://www.fountainsofthegreatdeep.com/IFS.htm
Talk about jokes. JESUS! That's one silly web site. LMAO
Origins, formed thru 'originalisms' vied as originalities from the original Originator. You question my Origin theory? Futz-face.
It's funny to see that atheists are proclaiming to be intelligent and yet they keep fighting against the invisible, something they don't believe in. This only shows how childish and ridiculous they are.
Too many straws need too many 'strawed-pickers' wherever the straws are strewn upon the abundancy in the frontages of strawmen straying for strewn straws..
Atheists struggle against the very real laws that believers impose on them, e.g. creationism in science class, same-se.x marriage bans, stem cell research bans, etc.
Actually I think they are fighting the humans that believe in such things who are trying to infringe upon their rights.
ME II,
Imaged reasonings are not void of godlessness yet rational reasonings have little imaged soundness from which to see with. A clod is a dumb futz and becomes a dumber klutz who becomes the dumbest buffoon in all the fooleries of angst rationalisms.
Perhaps God's Oldest Dreamer should consider retiring?
I don't bother fighting against something that doesn't exist. I will fight against having the rules of a non-existent god made the law of the land.
Keep your Dark-Ages beliefs out of the legislative agenda and we'll all be pals. If someone wants to waste good brain power on make-believe, I don't care, but when your make-believe starts infringing my rights, it becomes a problem. Keep your god where he belongs: in your head!
It's funny to see that christians are proclaiming to be intelligent and yet they keep BELIEVING IN the invisible. This only shows how childish and ridiculous they are.
we are not fighting agaist god. we are fighting against the impact of the faithful who influence laws to deny others' their civil rights. if you cannot see the difference, you are an idiot
Has anyone noticed that the Mormon Jesus has blue eyes, blond hair and is built like a weight lifter? The Norse Jesus? Crown of thorns or helmet with horns on it. People shape Jesus into whatever or whoever they want just like sit-coms do.
Someone who posts here regularly has the handle:
If we were horses, our God’s would be horses.
We create our Gods in our image.
Ooops – greengrocer's apostrophe!
It is always there, next to you.
When people get full of themselves they turn from God, but when they are humbled by life and near death it is amazing how many turn to Him at the last minute.
Doesn't mean that he actually exists.
Turn to whom?
And kids turn to Santa Claus for their Christmas wishes.
The Lord of Imaginationland isn't so insecure about himself that he would care about harmless jokes.
Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me... unless you are an Omnipotent God, she sweats the small stuff.
The reason Jesus is fair game for the liberals is because if they put down a moral authority it makes them less guilty of the things they do and they know that Christians will not attack them for it. Let them put down Mohammed or Buddha and that's another story. It is not that Christians do not love Jesus, but they also for the most part follow His teachings of non-retaliation and are accepting disapproval as a way of life.
It's often hard to take someone's argument seriously when gross exagerations are used , I.e., 'Liberals believe , etc ' . I don't know how it got started that liberals are heathen pagans. Well, that is not true.
Note for future blog posts: Liberal does not equal immoral.
Yeah, Dwight.....all those maurauding Buddhists...
What incredible insight.
Go home, boy......
What all those Jesus jokes tell us....
Since REAL HISTORY and the ROMAN CHRONICLES never mention anyone named Jesus ( a guy who supposedly threatened the power of EMPEROR TIBERIUS of Rome) the chances of there ever having been a Jesus is NIL...so you can make all the jokes you want and still not go to the heaven that doesn't exist..
Jesus was never a threat to Tiberius of Rome, but to Herod who rulled over the Jewish state. Even Pontus Pilate didn't think Jesus was a threat. Jesus concern wasn't about seizing power from the rulers, but it was a below the scenes work. The Jews hated Him and the Romans later hated Him and tried to wipe out of existence all Christianity and you wonder why there are very few Roman references. But there are some. It is amazing that this person who did not exist had such a following and an impact on society.
Hmmm..tell that to Roman emperor Constantine.
I just love the way they brainwash their children into believing this muck. That child's brain has already been destroyed by Dark Ages thinking. His parents should be locked up for child abuse.
Tell what to Constantine? That he fell for a myth? He probably wouldn't care, since his "conversion" was more politically motivated than religious.
Biblical Jesus never existed...no evidence period. Odds are there might have been a n insane bast ard child with a cultic personality....probalby was put to death for being insane. Very good chance that he was also bi se#ual and slept with prost i tutes.
This article generated 3,000 posts?
It hardly even makes a point let alone being thought provoking.
It is an article about christianity so it is a great place for people to be rude to each other and throw out facts that are unprovable.
All I can say is, if all the intellectual and spiritual power evinced in all 51 pages of this discussion were applied to picking up litter we'd be lucky if one Big Mac sack made it into the trash. I suggest you all go back and re-read Durkheim on the origins and social purposes of religion.
You can't even prove I replied to you, and I'm a living human being typing right now to you. If you don't want God to exist, the form of the scriptures given to others centuries ago, is hopeless, for you. God even made it simplier than that, he threw in stumbling blocks so you can trip, fall, and ignore what he said, and feel right about it. For you, you got what you wanted, and so did God.
John, God does not exist unless some proof has been found in the last few hours that I haven't heard of.