Which is more offensive to Christians

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Which is more offensive to Christians

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm going with #1.  I'd

I'm going with #1.  I'd like to hear some Christians weigh in though.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Was gonna say D.... all of the above, but...

I think #3.

They prolly figure the trinity can take care of themselves and are

powerful enough to stomp the asses of anyone (or just send 'em

to that burnin' firepit called haill!)

So, yeah,  #3 methinks. They don't want their precious holy text messed with.

But that's just my atheist point of view.

How 'bout it fundies ????


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Technically the only one

Technically the only one that would guarantee you a place in hell is #1 - as it is certainly blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I would actually have thought #3 would be the least offensive as it is only disrespecting the book itself - the first 2 are directly insulting their deity and also involve them in homosexuality - and fundies tend to take an extreme, irrational offense at homosexuality period.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Death Dragoon
Bronze Member
Death Dragoon's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
I'd say 1 for the same

I'd say 1 for the same reasons, tho all three would be enough for a christian to forget his teachings and break a few his precious commandments.

When once asked in the library if I believed in Jesus Christ, I pointed out that zombie novels are in the fiction section.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
There's no greater

There's no greater commandment breaker than those who hold the commandments as holy.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:There's no

Sapient wrote:

There's no greater commandment breaker than those who hold the commandments as holy.

 

Well technically they are the only ones who can break them. I'm sure my actions contradict most of them most of the time, but since I know they are not commandments I'm not breaking anything.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Please, you guys missed the

Please, you guys missed the boat on blasphemy. South Park had Marry Bleeding out of her ass long before you were a twinkle in your daddy's sperm.

Your just pissed that South Park blasphemed atheists by having Richard Dawkins screw Ms Garrisson whom he later found out was a transgendered person.

POT MEET KETTLE!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The funny part about

The funny part about blasphemy, and why PC people hate South Park is that theists dont get it.

In this thread you blaspheme the Christian label, but the same kneejerk reaction applies to all. To me, when someone reacts to you picking on their invisable friend in the sky, I get this image of a midget standing in front of THE TERMINATOR,  shouting, "DON'T HIT HIM, YOU MIGHT HURT HIM".

Blasphemy is nothing more than a word someone uses to placate their own emotions rather than come up with a cognative defense for the claims they make.

When South park got to atheists, and I knew they would, I wasn't offended at all. Were the stereotypes true? No, but knowing the "spirit" of the show, I laughed my ass off. Because THEY GET it and PC people dont.

WE CAN DISSAGREE, WE CAN BLASPHEME AND WE CAN LET THE WORDS FLY, without hating each other.

I would rather someone tell me "I am full of it" flat out and debate them on that issue, than to have some insecure person demand my silence.

So to the Christians reading this, before you break out your clubs and torches, ask yourself the following.

"How did I react to Muslims demanding the death of a cartoonist?"

"Is my god that weak that he cant handle defending himself without me?"

Maybe it isn't a deity you defend, but an absurdity you cant defend but are unwilling to face because the utopia is far to intoxicating?

Thats ok, call your god Allah, Yahwey or Thor. We as humans don't pick on each other because we have to hate each other, we don't. We pick on you because of your claims, and for any theist to say they don't pick on us is to deny human nature. I like to bitch, and so do you.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You're right, Brian, but it

You're right, Brian, but it would help a lot if South Park was actually funny. It has its moments but most of the intended humour is very hit and miss, I think.

 

However your comment reminds me of some years ago (already nearly thirty) when Monty Python's Life of Brian (no relation I assume) generated a huge backlash from the Church of England top guys on its release in the UK. Heavyweights of the day like Malcolm Muggeridge and published theologians were wheeled out on TV to back up the high church's accusations of blasphemy against the Monty Python team.

 

But what became patently obvious very quickly was that the real objection lay not so much in that the film's content was blasphemous (the debate had started before the film had even been released), or that humour based on the gospel was inherently blasphemous, but that the film would undoubtedly get christians laughing at the inanities which abound in the core story of their faith. This was the real bug-bear, since humour is something theists just don't "do", and it was therefore the one form of "attack" against which they had no defence.

 

When their attempted "defences" of their faith were themselves parodied brilliantly by satirists they realised they were beaten, and as suddenly as the furore had begun it disappeared, most obviously on instructions from the top not to make a bad situation even worse. A pathetic attempt by various church front figures to show that they too "got" the humour came over as the hypocritical hogwash it was, and even this was stopped.

 

In a word, they lost.

 

South Park might be attempting something in the same vein, but it's humour is too anarchical to be precise in the targets it aims at (basically anything and everything). The US is crying out for a mainstream TV show, or a successful movie, which targets religious fundamentalism in a humorous manner. Humour is the one thing that hurts these piss-artists where it hurts most since they have no response, or at least one that does not do the humorists' job for them.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anyone without a critic is

Anyone without a critic is nothing but deaf. Bitching is what we all do. But as a species what we haven't done is recognize that bitching is NORMAL. When we do that, we might respond more with words than swords. Words might make us react, but swords can cut.

I don't like to be cut. But if given the choice, I'd rather be called a bastard, than to have my throat slit over something as stupid as calling daddy a whimp.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wonder how quickly someone

I wonder how quickly someone would be banned from a Christian site after posting my OP.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Which of

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

I would say #3 because the average/fundie christian uses that book as proof for their belief.

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I wonder

MattShizzle wrote:

I wonder how quickly someone would be banned from a Christian site after posting my OP.

I would guess...long enough for 2-3 people respond;

1 to be nice and ask the poster to think about the question and how it makes people on the forum feel -

1 to call the poster a troll

- and- 

1 to reply with a long post about how boring and mundane this "type of question" from visiting atheists can be...

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if the idea of

I wonder if the idea of recycling bibles into tampon stuffing would be especially offensive since at least in the OT God seems to take extreme offense at menstruation (one wonders why he made reproduction work that way if it bothers him so much...)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Death Dragoon
Bronze Member
Death Dragoon's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

I would say #3 because the average/fundie christian uses that book as proof for their belief.

 

Fundie is short for fundamentalist right?

When once asked in the library if I believed in Jesus Christ, I pointed out that zombie novels are in the fiction section.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Sure as hell doesn't mean

Sure as hell doesn't mean it's fun to die!


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Death Dragoon wrote:Fundie

Death Dragoon wrote:


Fundie is short for fundamentalist right?

yep.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I wonder

MattShizzle wrote:

I wonder how quickly someone would be banned from a Christian site after posting my OP.

If you're asking because you're about to try it I would phrase it like - can you explain to me why (insert offensive statement here) is offensive to you.  That might be more likely to get you responses and you can then question those responses.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Looking even more into it -

Looking even more into it - in the OT female reproduction was made as punishment for the garden of Eden - and then god gets offended by both menstruation and childbirth. If this is the case the Catholics are clearly wrong on their stance on birth control as the modern pill prevents both. He is also twice as offended by a woman giving birth to a girl as if it were a boy. Clearly if this offends him, he ought to have designed the female reproductive system differently. Using a new version of a watchmaker argument - if a watchmaker was designing a watch and was for some reason very offended by electricity, were he otherwise sane he would more than likely make it a wind up watch. Clearly there are many things seriously wrong with the story of Genesis.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords wrote:I

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

I would say #3 because the average/fundie christian uses that book as proof for their belief.

Spooooooky, cause I was going to add what you said above to the end of my earlier response but then my pager went off and I had to cut it short.

Is there a twilight zone icon on the smiley page somewhere ? 

BTW Renee, your new picture is nice.


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
It's incredibly hard for me

It's incredibly hard for me to make a guess on this (hell, I can't even imagine myself getting upset over either of them), but I think I'd go with #3. My reasoning for this is because it's defiling their "holy" book, and it's something that can be done in reality. That will trigger the "we're being repressed!!!1111" shit.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I wonder

MattShizzle wrote:

I wonder how quickly someone would be banned from a Christian site after posting my OP.

I'm sure that tons of redneck cliches that start with "faster than" would suffice.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


UlyssesBreckenridge
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-07-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Which of

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

The quest for shock is so apparent its not offensive at all; just a waste of time on ill conceived satire. Although anyone having a solid understanding of christian theology knows God can handle himself so no offense can be taken.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
God is a figment of the

God is a figment of the imagination. Figments of the imagination cannot "handle themselves". They must be imagined to handle themselves by delusional people.

 

Since not all delusional people necessarily follow the guidelines for this particular delusion which you call "christian theology" in the manner you choose to, and since these guidelines are constantly re-interpreted, re-invented, and generally composed of ethereal fantasy in any case, it is too sweeping a statement to say that no offence will be taken. Some people - even some theologians - are willing participants in the delusion to which you also subscribe just so they CAN take offense!

 

By the way - how can one have a "solid" understanding of theology? One can have a comprehensive recall of the tenets it examines. One can be so immersed in it as to have the ability to contribute to its pseudo-scientific and faulty philosophical ouvre. But anything founded on fantasy is hardly solid, is it?

 

Anyone who purchases and values a bible ahead of a dictionary needs a priority overhaul.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Which of

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

None of the above. 

I don't get offended when it comes to religion.  I actually enjoy sacrilege quite a bit--it's a healthy part of a well-rounded spiritual life, in my opinion. 

 


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
*or*You can hit them in the

*or*

You can hit them in the face with their own hypocrisy: "If there really was a god, then he undoubtedly thinks you are an asshole..Oh, and he told me to hate you"


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Try it

MattShizzle wrote:

I wonder how quickly someone would be banned from a Christian site after posting my OP.

 

         I think that would be funny to see this, but I don't know of any right off hand.  I would have to do a google search and maybe pick the most popular fundie site.  Give them that question and then post a picture from "Church Sign Generator".  I would but I don't want anyone to take the "Church Sign Generator" site down.


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Whoa!!

Nordmann wrote:

Sure as hell doesn't mean it's fun to die!

 

       Calm down Turbo.     


UlyssesBreckenridge
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Well if they are figments of

Well if they are figments of imagination then the inquirer must be quite deluded to ask them in the first place. Unless we were all working off the pretense that they were real in this strictly hypothetical situation.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why would that be? One can

Why would that be? One can easily say "Daffy Duck is crazy" or "Montgomery Burns is an asshole" or "Harry Potter is a dork" and nobody would think thy consider those characters real.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:Nordmann

Boon Docks wrote:

Nordmann wrote:

Sure as hell doesn't mean it's fun to die!

 

       Calm down Turbo.     

 

Calm up Piston

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Which of

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

#1 is just nonsensical since God and HS are spirit and do not occupy space. Although I am trying to picture it anyway.

It is ironic that most atheists pick #3, showing that they dont understand us too well. Although the words are inspired, the book itself is just paper. Worshipping the book, which many do tend to do unfortunately, is idol worship.

I would have to go with #2 but would like to Matt to clarify, is that with or without the courtesy of a reach-around? Cuz that makes a big differnce. If not, then I would go with #3.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
 You know you're probably

 

You know you're probably going to hell for that? Might as well become an atheist.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:You know

MattShizzle wrote:

You know you're probably going to hell for that? Might as well become an atheist.

Yeah...it was still worth it.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I wonder

MattShizzle wrote:

I wonder if the idea of recycling bibles into tampon stuffing would be especially offensive since at least in the OT God seems to take extreme offense at menstruation (one wonders why he made reproduction work that way if it bothers him so much...)

When Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, God told her that she will pay with her blood. But Eve was clever, and she managed to make a deal on a month part-payments.



I think that it depends on who's fundie and who not. Non-fundies considers God, Holy ghost and Satan as figures rather diffcult to imagine, well, if Satan can appear in a form of a snake, then it doesn't really set any limits, does it? This is why an idea of a piece of Bible shoved in someone's vagina, rectum or local porno magazine store is much more substantial. It's also hilarious and very useful.

But fundies has an unpleasant habit to speak, act and think for their gods, (hidden 'Psycho' movie reference Smiling ) I guess they would consider a heavenly gay party in #1 and #2 as more insulting.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


UlyssesBreckenridge
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Define "real"

Define "real"


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You're asking luminon? This

You're asking luminon?

 

This could take a while ...


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Which of these sentences would offend the average or the fundie Christian the most?

 

1. God and the Holy Spirit are gay partners who love to cum in each others mouth.

2. Jesus enjoys it when Satan fucks him up the ass.

3. Bibles should be recycled into toilet paper, tompon stuffing and porno magazines.

#1 is just nonsensical since God and HS are spirit and do not occupy space. Although I am trying to picture it anyway.

It is ironic that most atheists pick #3, showing that they dont understand us too well. Although the words are inspired, the book itself is just paper. Worshipping the book, which many do tend to do unfortunately, is idol worship.

I would have to go with #2 but would like to Matt to clarify, is that with or without the courtesy of a reach-around? Cuz that makes a big differnce. If not, then I would go with #3.

JAB, I appreciate what you are saying, but honestly, the thread is too young and currently has far too few responses for you to begin believing that "most atheists pick..."

As far as understanding the christian point of view or for that matter understanding the various christian denominations and their feelings about the holy bible, well, I do. I have studied the holy texts, read various other religious books (prolly enough to fill the back of a pickup truck) and have met and am surrounded daily by all types of xians. I, for one, understand all too well.

If, as you put it, many christians worship the book, then those many would be insulted by choice #3, wouldn't they ? So if Atheists do think xians would be 'most offended'(most as in sheer numbers) by #3, then I would say Atheists, on average or better, can't be too far off the mark. If many christians don't realize that books are just paper, it just goes to show their bliss, errr, I mean, ignorance.

What I'd like to know from Matt is:

Did you mean ALL bibles should be recycled?

Oh praise be the day!

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:You're asking

Nordmann wrote:

You're asking luminon?

 

This could take a while ...

Lol Smiling Maybe, but he's asking Matt. And btw, I would most probably just post a link on Wikipedia article, which would be very quick.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Speaking as an atheist I can

Speaking as an atheist I can see nothing in Matt's three supposed insults that would cause any mature person offence at all, be they religious or not. All three are gratuitously offensive only in a puerile way and do not really attack the basis of a theist's faith - which is where true offence would be taken, and where true offence should be concentrated too. If that is what Matt thought he was doing then he was way off the mark.

 

They would be more inclined, I think, to prompt pity for the mind that conceived them since they purport to be offensive to religious ideals but are simply innuendo-based insults which invert those ideals and suggest nothing intelligent by way of challenge to them. They also indicate a presumption on the part of the insulter that is almost childish in its expectation of causing offence at all, and ultimately call nothing into question except the maturity of the person who spoke them.

 

Embarrassing, in fact, and rescued only by the dignity of some of the responses which Matt was lucky to receive here.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I guarantee any of the 3

I guarantee any of the 3 would offend the average Christian and would drive most fundies into rabid mode. Look how offended they got a while back when someone made a jesus sculpture out of chocolate and how offended some get by the Blasphemy Challenge.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
They would offend people of

They would offend people of the same intellectual and emotional immaturity as the insulter.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You obviously don't see many

You obviously don't see many American theists. There were a huge number of Christians upset just because Kathy Griffin said "Suck it Jesus" at an awards ceremony. Look how upset they've gotten over certain movies/tv shows. I guarantee you this would create a shitstorm among them.

 

Imagine Moselms reaction to the same thing but with "Allah" "Mohammed" and "The Koran" instead of God, Jesus and the Bible (I don't believe there is a "Holy Spirit" in Islam.&quotEye-wink

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
No, because all three of

No, because all three of them are too contrived to force exactly that knee-jerk reaction and are not even very clever at that.

 

I am very aware of how simplistic some US christians can be, believe me. But your assumption that this represents "the average christian" is wrong. It represents a fairly vocal group of them, right enough, but the "average christian" even in the US is an altogether more managed and docile commodity. Depending on the context of how you would broadcast your insults, you would undoubtedly receive the expected reaction from fundamentalist elements, but the vast majority of people (including many non-christians) would simply wonder at how immature you are.

 

A good piece of advice has always been to know your enemy. You have not assessed correctly the nature of that which you have set yourself in opposition to, so you are confined to sniping at the element which you do understand and exists on your own level. Raise your sights a bit - and the quality of your insults!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The thing is, the fundies

The thing is, the fundies are very numerous here and are the most vocal and influential of Christians (and the ones I'm most opposed to.) These are the ones who try to ban abortion, put prayer back in school, censor, etc. Believe me, the average fundie gets up in the morning determined to be offended by something. I'm almost sure I'd get a mention on The 700 Club if one of that group happened to read this (though they would only say that I "Said some horrible, blasphempus vile things about our lord and saviour and the Holy Bible."   ) Saying the Moslem equivalent would surely earn a fatwah.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Matt, you need to get out

Matt, you need to get out and about more. I've a mental image of a pimply adolescent male locked 24/7 in his bedroom whose world view comes via a cable so is effectively digested for him before he even consumes it. However, I believe from other posts you've made here that you in fact have a psychiatric condition that does indeed confine you to home, so I won't pursue that analogy further.

 

I wish you well on the health front, and I mean that sincerely. But however you achieve it, it's time to move off the pap and on to the chewable stuff. Really - the world has quite a few dimensions to it that you're just not getting where you are.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:You

MattShizzle wrote:

You obviously don't see many American theists. There were a huge number of Christians upset just because Kathy Griffin said "Suck it Jesus" at an awards ceremony. Look how upset they've gotten over certain movies/tv shows. I guarantee you this would create a shitstorm among them.

 

Imagine Moselms reaction to the same thing but with "Allah" "Mohammed" and "The Koran" instead of God, Jesus and the Bible (I don't believe there is a "Holy Spirit" in Islam.&quotEye-wink

 

I think the question, when boldly presented, would offend anyone.  Regardless of the content.  If I'm walking down the street and someone goes,

'Hey buddy, what's worse, John cumming in Ethan's mouth, or John's kid doing Brian from behind?

 

It's not really what was said that I'm thinking about.  The question, while meaningless, is offensive.  Now, whether you should ask it or not is an entirely different question.

 

Now, given the content, I doubt religious people would take offense (beyond the initial shock to the question)to 1 or 2 because it's just clearly baiting.  3 is at least a meaningful statement about someone elses beliefs.

 

Though if I were to witness the discussion of any of the topics I would probably dismiss the questioner out of hand as being of little value to any actual substantive discourse.  It seems more like venting anger than making a meaningful statement.

 

**addendum**  What's insulting about this, to me, is that the questions make 'being homosexual' the worst possible quality a person can display.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I

MattShizzle wrote:

I guarantee any of the 3 would offend the average Christian and would drive most fundies into rabid mode. Look how offended they got a while back when someone made a jesus sculpture out of chocolate and how offended some get by the Blasphemy Challenge.

But Matt, the thing is, the Blasphemy Challenge was done in the same adolescent mindset that your list of "unholy and offensive" sentences was done.  Granted, the Blasphemy Challenge was far more predatory in nature, in that it targeted young people by offering them a free DVD for simply committing blasphemy on camera, but most sensible people know that the stunt was fundamentally innocuous on a spiritual level.  

The Blasphemy Challenge had several things that your "unholy and offensive" list does not:

1.  An audience.  Let's face it--it's a single message board post.  The Blasphemy Challenge was hyped to death on this site as well as youtube and even the national news.  Pat Robertson probably doesn't regularly browse rr.com, so you're probably not going to get name checked on the 700 Club. 

2.  A call to action.  The Blasphemy Challenge strongly encouraged people to tape themselves committing blasphemy and post it on youtube.  What's your call to action?  To read the list and...fly off the handle?  Weak.

3.  A reward.  Brian and Co. at least offered confused and vulnerable youngsters an incentive to piss off their parents and clergy.  What are you offering people in return for reading your "offensive" list? 

4.  A reason.  The Blasphemy Challenge was probably the most profitable internet marketing stunt of the past few years.  Not only did it dramatically increase readership on this site, which in turn has likely increased the number of paid subscriptions to the site, it also got them a slot on nationally televised debate, which itself surely increased readership, paid subscriptions, CD sales, etc. 

But the website isn't even yours, Matt.  So what's your reason?  What's your payoff? 

5.  An actual attack.  This is the most important part.  Brian and Co. played on the ignorance of average Christians (i.e. average people) who don't have time to sit around and read about the finer points of religion all day, knowing that they'd think their children were irreversibly damning themselves to hell.  This cuts to the heart of what drives the average Christian--to see that they and their loved ones reach heaven safely. 

But what does your list get at?  Members of the trinity ejaculating into each other's mouths?  Satan sodomizing Jesus?  Bibles being recycled to make toilet paper, "tompon" stuffing, and porno mags?  I'm guessing your list will really ruffle the feathers of unintelligent, immature males who have never read academic books, gone on dates, held down jobs, or gotten out much in general. 

Starting to sound familiar? 


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:But Matt, the

jmm wrote:

But Matt, the thing is, the Blasphemy Challenge was done in the same adolescent mindset that your list of "unholy and offensive" sentences was done.  Granted, the Blasphemy Challenge was far more predatory in nature, in that it targeted young people by offering them a free DVD for simply committing blasphemy on camera, but most sensible people know that the stunt was fundamentally innocuous on a spiritual level.  

 

Well, to be fair, look at it from the other side as well.  One of the hardest things to shake as you begin to unravel the lies is the fear of the eternal torment promised by our formerly loving sky-pops.  That emotional hook is the hardest part to shed for many recently liberated.

 

Seeing other people face this fear without pause or care..  that can be helpful for people still dealing with the vestiges.  In that regard, it was very kind thing to initiate. 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


UlyssesBreckenridge
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Matt has a Phsyciatric

Matt has a Phsyciatric condition that keeps him at home? I guess I'm surprised because you write so well.