Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Question of the Day #1

Why do Christians cry at funerals ? And what, if anything, does this tell us about their values ?

Give your answer in the comments.

Post a Comment


39 Comments:

At 10/06/2005 6:27 AM, Blogger Samuel Luke Johnston declaimed...

Jesus loves you and this is how you treat him!

This can not stand.

 
At 10/06/2005 9:47 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

It tells us that, deep down, they're instinctually materialists.

 
At 10/06/2005 9:47 AM, Blogger mathyoo declaimed...

Jesus loves me...but I make him wear a condom...

sounds like you have "issues". I looked at your blog, but saw no Truth, or even much in the way of truth. perhaps you're using a differen dictionary than I am?

 
At 10/06/2005 11:55 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

sam: "Jesus loves you and this is how you treat him!"

If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he appear to me like he did for Saul of Tarsus?

Yes, this is a serious question for Christians to consider.

 
At 10/06/2005 12:23 PM, Blogger Lya Kahlo declaimed...

"Jesus loves me...but I make him wear a condom..."

Jesus loves me too, but then he never calls. >:)

~~~

Why do they cry? Because their humans who've lost someone they loved. However, it is a little hypocritical if they really do believe that there's an afterlife that's really just an eternal beach party with Jesus.

 
At 10/06/2005 12:49 PM, Blogger Sam Jordison declaimed...

This exchange is really funny...

 
At 10/06/2005 1:46 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Why dont you stop trolling and answer the question in the blog post Sam? Afraid of something are you?

To answer the question: They lament the death, and mourn the fact that the person is no longer in this existence. Whether or not the Christians really believe that there is an afterlife or not, they consider it a bad thing that the person lost his material life and has passed on to whatever does or does not exist after life is over.

Christians comfort themselves by telling eachother that death doesnt mean that your consciousness ceases to exist. When they cry at a funeral, I think it exposes their true subconscious beliefs: that they dont REALLY believe that consciousness continues after death.

 
At 10/06/2005 2:40 PM, Blogger mathyoo declaimed...

they also cry because the death of someone always reminds us of our own mortality...

 
At 10/06/2005 3:13 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

I'm not asking the questions in order to get a certain answer, by the way. I think these questions can be debated. Of course, I have my own opinions, but this is one of the rare occasions where I'll shut up.

 
At 10/06/2005 6:26 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

No, I think this is an excellent question. According to Christianity, a person who dies in Christ escapes the pain of this world to experience eternal Paradise. For a Christian, a funeral should be a celebration of the highest order- the deceased is now quite literally standing in the presence of Jesus Christ. So why do Christians cry at the funerals of their own? Obviously, those feelings are virtually unavoidable and instinctive. I think they speak to our innate understanding of reality as purely material. Even Christians, self-deluding to the end (almost), make this subconscious concession.

 
At 10/06/2005 8:42 PM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

Christians cry because they compartmentalize their belief system.

It is obvious that they should not cry at all, because they think that their loved-one has "graduated" from corrupt nature into the superior spirit world. But they cry nevertheless, because they know that they have indeed lost a loved one. They cry as functional atheists.

...unless they are crying because their loved ones beat them to Happy Land.

 
At 10/06/2005 8:44 PM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

This blog is not doing anything to Jesus. You see, the contributors to this blog are what is called "atheists." That means that they do not believe in gods. Therefore, if we use our thinking caps, we understand that they are not doing anything to Jesus, as he is either dead, or nothing but a character. Even if he were dead, he would still not exist, so nothing can possibly be done to him.

It's fun to think!

 
At 10/07/2005 1:23 AM, Blogger Dave Harty declaimed...

Speaking of the J-man
Thought you guys might like this:

Good old NYC

I love this city.

Dave

 
At 10/07/2005 11:13 AM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Hell yea Dave Harty!

I heard about that on NoBS radio. Sweeeeeet!

 
At 10/07/2005 12:11 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Bahnsen Burner asked and stated:

"If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he appear to me like he did for Saul of Tarsus?

Yes, this is a serious question for Christians to consider."


Atheist Smasher responds: Just like I whooped you in your contradictions thread, I'll, again, help you out by showing how sin has affected your mind and causes you to reason so poorly.

Like in the walking contradiction post you were embarrassed because you asked how one entity could have two entities. I responded by showing that one entity (sandwhich) can have two entites (penut butter and jelly). Your *only* response was to make fun of me and say that I worshipped a sandwhich. That's fallacious.

Now, I again embarrass you:

If you love your mom why don't you have sex with her like you do your wife?

Yes, this is a serious question for Atheists to consider.

 
At 10/07/2005 12:13 PM, Blogger Thomas declaimed...

I think it's clear why Christians cry at funerals. It's because each Christian is, individually, the very best Christian on earth. Their selfish, imperfect parents; their lying, cheating spouses; their ungrateful little atheist children; their blaspheming colleagues; and most especially the deceitful heresiarchs who pretend to be their co-religionists -- why, they're all going to go to hell. And with the remainder of humanity spending eternity down under, where in Heaven will our good Christian find someone to feel superior to?

That is why they cry.

 
At 10/07/2005 12:17 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

why do atheists cry when their friends die but not when their computer dies? They're both just atoms in motion.

 
At 10/07/2005 12:26 PM, Blogger Thomas declaimed...

I deny your premise, Sir -- if my sweet little iBook were ever to perish, I would be beyond consoling. What do you have against atoms, anyway?

 
At 10/07/2005 2:03 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Sir, I guess you don't mind if sick men touch little girls; afterall, we touch our keys on our keyboard, it's all atoms anyway.

 
At 10/07/2005 2:38 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Manata, you're still here ? You do know we're not talking about you any more, right ? There's really nothing keeping you here.

 
At 10/07/2005 2:41 PM, Blogger Thomas declaimed...

Paul (or do you prefer to go by Saul?), you have yet to cross the pons asinorum of intellectual and moral debate. You make an impudent accusation against my ethical system without demonstrating a single link in the chain of your deductions. The empirical observation that the world is made of atoms (and other stuff) does in no wise entail nihilism as a logical consequence.

A collection of atoms in a state of maximum entropy does not merit moral concern, but that same ensemble rearranged in the form of a child most certainly does. The concern is not for the constituent particles, but for the pattern. Would it be any different if the child were composed of God-fluff, instead of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.? No. The living, suffering pattern is that which is disturbed in your perverse scenario.

Your Bible is nothing but a collection of rudely-shaped letters and punctuation marks, stamped onto the dead cells of a tree that feasted on dung and photons. What distinguishes it from superior texts, such as the plays of Shakespeare, or the writings of Darwin? Only the pattern that the characters compose. You're a substrate fetishist, buddy. Jesus doesn't smile on that.

 
At 10/07/2005 4:04 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

A collection of atoms in a state of maximum entropy does not merit moral concern, but that same ensemble rearranged in the form of a child most certainly does. The concern is not for the constituent particles, but for the pattern.

Nice assertion.

Anyway, what about a robot child? That's atoms in the "pattern" of a child, so I guess you can't screw your blow up dolly girl anymore. And, stop playing with your sister's Barbies, or does size matter?

I don't hold to your theories about the world, so your questions mean squat to me.

The propositional content of the Bible is what matters, and propositions are not material since they can be instantiated in more than one particular place at the same time.

Anyway, who says the "pattern" matters? You? So you're a subjectivist? Or, is this some universal moral law? But is that law material? No. So I guess you have no universal absolute standard of morality. Now, feel free to cry when you clip your green toenails and to laugh when your buddies die.

 
At 10/07/2005 5:16 PM, Blogger Thomas declaimed...

Your apologetical system came right out of the gutter, didn't it? How is your creepy obsession with young girls and blow-up dolls supposed to bring anyone to Christ? Why is it that you assume life without your illucid ménage-à-trois theism would so rapidly descend into a cheap porno world? It's speaks ill of your inner mental life. To save you a whole lot of guessing, I don't lust after any female patterns, regardless of the substrate. So you can suck on a plastic instantiation of the fabulous pattern of my dick, fucktard.

Now, to raise the level of discourse above that of the Westminster Theological Seminary, I reply as follows: I do not know whether conscious beings matter objectively, or if they only matter according according to my own asthetic preferences, but either way, the existence or non-existence of immaterial deities is irrelevant to that controversy. Cf. Euthyphro, Dilemma of. I do believe that a pattern, be it made out of silicon chips or Legos, which could replicate all of the complexity of human behavior, would be worthy of moral respect. Show me a robot that can convince me of its (or his, or her) own mental life, and I will fight for that robot's civil rights all the way to the Galactic Supreme Court. You, on the other hand, have yet to pass the Turing Test, and so I don't see why I should bother arguing with you. Upload some manner modules and learn to function like a grown-up theologian.

 
At 10/07/2005 5:43 PM, Blogger Niels declaimed...

Maybe it's better to ask actual Christians. The rational world obviously provides sufficient answers.

 
At 10/07/2005 5:45 PM, Blogger Niels declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/07/2005 5:46 PM, Blogger Niels declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/07/2005 7:37 PM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Thomas said:

"Now, to raise the level of discourse above that of the Westminster Theological Seminary,"

LOL!!!! that was classic...

and yet so true...

 
At 10/08/2005 1:59 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

No, not reformed, *THIS* was hillarious:

" I do believe that a pattern, be it made out of silicon chips or Legos, which could replicate all of the complexity of human behavior, would be worthy of moral respect."


Project: Give me the necessray and sufficient conditions for having "complex human behavior" which is what warrants being "worthy of moral respect."

I'm sorry you had to make fun of my points and imply sick and twisted intentions on my part. If you can't deal with the force of the argument then say so, but making fun is a logical fallacy.

Oh, not reformed, didn't you find this post of mine funyy also:

Bahnsen Burner asked and stated:

"If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he appear to me like he did for Saul of Tarsus?

Yes, this is a serious question for Christians to consider."


Atheist Smasher responds: Just like I whooped you in your contradictions thread, I'll, again, help you out by showing how sin has affected your mind and causes you to reason so poorly.

Like in the walking contradiction post you were embarrassed because you asked how one entity could have two entities. I responded by showing that one entity (sandwhich) can have two entites (penut butter and jelly). Your *only* response was to make fun of me and say that I worshipped a sandwhich. That's fallacious.

Now, I again embarrass you:

If you love your mom why don't you have sex with her like you do your wife?

Yes, this is a serious question for Atheists to consider.

LOL, that was pretty funny also, huh?

 
At 10/08/2005 8:19 AM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul,

The REALLY hilarous thing about your posts is the fact you have such a 'look at me!' mentality.

LOL!

Look at what I typed! Look how logical and smart I am! Look at how I can lower myself to the lowest common denominator in my posts! Look at me! I'm saved, you're not! You have pimples! Look at me!

That is funny.

You are a carcicature...an immature man with a low self-esteem who is constantly trying to validate his own self-doubt.

Hilarious!

 
At 10/08/2005 9:41 AM, Blogger Thomas declaimed...

Fr. Manata said, "making fun is a logical fallacy."

Well goddamn! There go half the arrows from the atheist's quivers. I thought we can just sit and be snarky about how the doctrine of the trinity implies that Jesus impregnated his own mother.

Fortunately the Bible is safe from this new logic rule. There are no (intentionally) humorous bits in it.

 
At 10/08/2005 10:51 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Good, I can take it that reason won out here. All NR can say about my posts is something that has nothing to do with them, and Thomas has been reduced to mere ridicule.

More empirical proof of the Bible, guys: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

You guys are the biggest reason people stay Christians. I love how God uses you atheists as means of confirming our worldview. See, even though you guys hate God, he still uses you. You have purpose and meaning.

 
At 10/08/2005 11:10 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Oh yeah, NR, didn't you run away from my debate challenge? What, your level of argumentation is not above "that of the Westminster Theological Seminary?"

Now, again, I was hilarious! LOL

 
At 10/08/2005 12:05 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

ooooooooooo Thomas,

Project: Give me the necessray and sufficient conditions for having "complex human behavior" which is what warrants being "worthy of moral respect."

 
At 10/08/2005 9:24 PM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul said,

" Oh yeah, NR, didn't you run away from my debate challenge? "

I do have 2 ideas for a debate, Paul. Let me know which one you'd like to do:

1. In his online exchanges with non-believers, Paul Manata does not exhibit the majority of the Christian "fruits of the spirit" outlined in the New Testament, nor does he follow the majority of Jesus Christ's admonitions in these same online exchanges.

2. The God of the Bible causes people to be deceived.

 
At 10/09/2005 1:44 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

hmmm, so you want to debate about when Jesus called people sons of the devil, white washed tombes, fools, broods of vipers, stiff-necked, wicked people, and since He inspired the whole Bible we can add: fools, darkened minds, morons, dead sinners, God haters, lovers of death, law-breakers, etc etc etc?

Okay, you loose :-)

 
At 10/09/2005 7:00 AM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul said:

"hmmm, so you want to debate about when Jesus called people sons of the devil, white washed tombes, fools, broods of vipers, stiff-necked, wicked people, and since He inspired the whole Bible we can add: fools, darkened minds, morons, dead sinners, God haters, lovers of death, law-breakers, etc etc etc?

Okay, you loose :-)"

I loose? The only thing loose around here is your mouth, and the shit it spews...as well as your handling and understand of the precious bible.

I picked my words carefully, Paul, not loosely as you are often doing. I said the 'majority' of the fruits of the spirit in the New Testmanent, and Jesus Christ's admonitions. I didn't mention anything else. Nice try, expanding it to include 'the entire Bible.'

Although...it does sound like you're saying the majority of the Bible is there to encourage Christians to be asses to unbelievers. Either way, you "loose." :)

 
At 10/10/2005 11:38 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul asked: "If you love your mom why don't you have sex with her like you do your wife?"

Because I don't want to, and I don't think she wants to either. And even she did, I wouldn't want to.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Paul, I noticed that you nowhere addressed my question. Perhaps you forgot it while hoping to harangue me, so I'll ask it again:

If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he appear to me like he did for Saul of Tarsus?

I await a Christian response.

 
At 10/15/2005 9:59 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Dawson Asked: "If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he appear to me like he did for Saul of Tarsus?"

Paul responds: Dawson, if you love your mom, why don't you have sex with her like you do for your wife?

Dawson, you really need to quit hanging around Sansone, didn;t my denate wiht him teach you anything?

 
At 8/16/2010 3:25 AM, Blogger ming declaimed...

MPEG Converter for Mac
MPEG to MP4 Converter for Mac
MPEG to AVI Converter for Mac
MPEG to DVD Converter for Mac
MPEG to FLV Converter for Mac
MPEG to WMV Converter for Mac
MPEG to MOV Converter for Mac
mpeg to vob Converter for mac
MPEG to DivX Converter for Mac
MPEG to 3GP Converter for Mac
MPEG to iPod Converter for Mac
MPEG to iPhone Converter for Mac
MPEG to MP3 Converter for Mac

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home