And as with finding Waldo, I fail.Let's look at some pictures of republican national conventions.
Hey, there's a black person in there! Though, it's kinda like finding Waldo.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Also, now that I've caught up on this thread, I can only come to the conclusion that Dave is transgender.
Is that what they're calling it now? There's always new terminology to memorize.In the immortal words of Ame...
GasBandit
Staff member
Could just drop the "statistically" part since it's a qualifier meant to spare feelings anyway and just call it "normal."Also, apparently saying statistically normal is easier than saying cis.
Bottom row, third from the right, saw her almost immediately. The lighting's kinda bad though, so it's hard to pick out more, but I think I see one or two moreLet's look at some pictures of republican national conventions.
Hey, there's a black person in there! Though, it's kinda like finding Waldo.
But yeah, the picture does drive the point home doesn't it.
Untrue: Democratic conventions are usually crawling with Hollywood folk from all races and backgrounds who basically support the Dems because it's ether them or the reds. You also see lots of Union reps which can be anyone of any race too because most Union reps work their way up from the bottom rungs. It's a completely different scene because of how Democrats BECOME Democrats.
The late response I only came up with after sleeping: "How is it a trap? Did a door open under your feet and you fell into a penis formation device?"In the immortal words of Ame...
That looks like a kid I went to school with, and this is something that he would have totally done.Nope. Sooner.
I get the joke, and all, but he's wrong from a Christian-theological point of view about basically everything he says about the Devil, and also God. I say this as an atheist; I just loathe lazy philosophising.
I wouldn't necessarily say so. The thing is that Genesis, like most of the bible, is EXTREMELY vague about what the nature of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil actually is. You can interpret it pretty much any way you want to. As for the bits about people being killed in the bible... well, the devil never did wipe out all life on the planet with the exception of a drunk and his family, and the animals of course.
Last edited:
Hang on, let me get this straight. From the perspective of Christianity, the anti-Christianity point of view is wrong. Damn, that blows my mind. Thing is, Christianity ignores stuff from its book's source in Judaism, so isn't really reliable in its own religion.
This is a fun discussion I love, but in other pictures stuff, the reverse-catcalling thing is finally getting it right:
Rule #1: Never discuss religion on the internet. No matter how well-intentioned your arguments, no matter how well thought out or moderate, you will be told you are completely and utterly wrong for reasons. Everyone on the internet is a religious scholar.
The only person I've ever enjoyed seeing speak on religion on this board is @Espy, who might in fact be a religious scholar.
Those pictures are fantastic.
Also, I am not saying, the anti-Christianity perspective is wrong; I am saying what he says about the Devil and God is taken from the Christian source, but re-interpreted very speciously (e.g.: the Devil only killed ten people; death is a direct result of taking his advice to eat some fruit [this calls into question whatever heaven's version is of the FDA, however], so you can literally attribute all human deaths to the Devil). You could make the argument, and I would, that if the Garden was perfect, how did the snake/Devil get in there; that seems to be a lapse in security that surely an all knowing God could have prevented. I find it difficult to say that the Devil can be seen as anything other than malevolent, regardless of how I feel about how God comes across in the Bible.
I am told I completely and utterly wrong about many things on a daily basis. One time, I even was wrong. But just the one time.
The only time I object to participating in conversations or debates is when they become mean; many people would say that is inevitable on the internet, but we've a good crowd here. I am no religious scholar, but I have fun reading about it and talking about it, and I have fun, and find it edifying, to debate and argue positions on it. It's not that I think I am more well-thought out than another person, just that my understanding of the information I have has led me to a set of conclusions, and it is useful to understand how similar information can result in a different set of conclusions, or what information I do not have that may either bolster my position or shift it.
(But, obviously I am right.)
Lucifer isn't even in the Bible.
It could also be interpreted that the snake's presence was God's intent in the first place. There are a thousand interpretations. I don't invalidate the idea of the serpent as an agent of necessity for the freedom of the creation's mind just because Christianity doesn't agree.
Interesting idea, and spoilers for the Lucifer graphic novel:
At one point, Lucifer is able to make his own creation, and he mimics God's creation to a point, where the only command is to worship anything. An angel poses as a snake and convinces one of the couple made (I think Adam) to begin worshiping. Lucifer destroys him, Eve asks to be destroyed, and Lucifer ends up inviting people from God's creation to take refuge in his if they're tired of God's rule.
The problem with the Bible and religious dogma is that there is so much extraneous stuff that's been added or co-opted from other mythologies (I'm talking about stuff extraneous to actual text of the bible itself) and mysticism that if you're going solely by the Bible, you'll find that a great deal of what is taught in religion isn't even there.
My wife wanted me to pass that brofist to you, because she was saying exactly this before I went to check on this thread.
Well, like what in particular? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I figured a statement like this could use a few examples.
As stated, the entire concept of Lucifer, the entire concept of ranks of angels, you could even say technically that the concept of hell isn't even directly in the bible, just vague statements about being cast out and a lake of fire.
There's been so much cross-contamination of religion (especially as regards Christianity) in the name of spreading "Your God is just like ours, see? Look at all the similarities!" logic that I feel each religion needs its own massive #DEFINE block before I can even start to make any sort of judgements.
--Patrick
--Patrick
