The Religion Thread

[homerfobe]

So, according to you, anyone who works in fast food is of low intellect?...

He hasn't said that, yet. Someone behind a fast food counter might be of "low intellect", illiterate, immature, mentally deficient, disturbed, unskilled, lacking in ambition, uneducated or several other reasons, but few aspire to it. rstrong merely said that it suits you because you're the first and you've just proven the second and third, too. Feel free to let us know which others apply.

So you and rstrongsmell have had experience behind the fast food counter which enables you to identify those of your mental capacities; we're impressed. Glad you had high aspirations.

Which of the above, if not all, of the adjectives describe you two? Select all that apply.

[homerfobe]

Again, just for you, rstrong said you're suited for fast food because you're of "low intellect", not that all fast food workers are of "low intellect". [/color]

rstrongsmell's mouthpiece? A slur by any other name is still a slur.

[homerfobe]

...Again, just for you, rstrong said you're suited for fast food because you're of "low intellect", not that all fast food workers are of "low intellect"...

rstrongsmell's mouthpiece?

Open forum. Don't like it? Use PM instead of whining at me.

Not whining. Just pointing out that you've appointed yourself as rstrongsmell's titty.

I got your PM. I'm not interested in meeting you for a drink.

[bannination]

What a great man.

[bannination]

[Leo Lyons]

This thread has the wrong title. It should have been The Anti-Religion Thread.

Piper is right though. The hate of religion expressed here can be compared to Homerfobe's hate of gays.

[bannination]

This thread has the wrong title. It should have been The Anti-Religion Thread.

Piper is right though. The hate of religion expressed here can be compared to Homerfobe's hate of gays.

That would be an inaccurate title, I'm not necessarily opposed to organized religion, and I doubt most posters are.

[Bungalow Bill]

Well, the Bible is a pretty long book, so I don't blame folks for not getting through
the entire thing.

[bannination]

I don't think one has to get much pass Genesis before realizing the whole thing is bullshit.

[rstrong]

Well, the Bible is a pretty long book, so I don't blame folks for not getting through
the entire thing.

Two books actually, or more if you add a couple popular sequels from the Mormons and Muslims.

Even then there's some missing chapters, some available from obscure libraries or not at all.

And the First Council of Nicaea and others later made some controversial edits, including the very nature of Jesus and whether Han shot first.

[bannination]

Well, the Bible is a pretty long book, so I don't blame folks for not getting through
the entire thing.

Two books actually, or more if you add a couple popular sequels from the Mormons and Muslims.

Even then there's some missing chapters, some available from obscure libraries or not at all.

And the First Council of Nicaea and others later made some controversial edits, including the very nature of Jesus and whether Han shot first.

If Jesus would have had a machine gun, he wouldn't have been crucified.
Soundest argument evar.

[O Really]

This thread has the wrong title. It should have been The Anti-Religion Thread.

Piper is right though. The hate of religion expressed here can be compared to Homerfobe's hate of gays.

A topic about "religion" should reasonably include pros and antis. But to assuage some Christian angst about being bashed, I'd be interested in some Christian commentary on the validity of Buddhism, which preceded Christianity by 500 years or so. I'd also be interested if any of the Christian literalists have considered that "ye must be born again" really really means that and thus validates reincarnation.

As Bungalow has pointed out, atheists reject only one more religion than religious people do.

[Bungalow Bill]

It all matters what your definition of book is. But yes the book is divided into two
books, OT and NT. The OT is a whole lot longer. And don't forget the books in the
Catholic Bible. Now the page count is really heading up there. And if Jesus had a
machine gun he wouldn't have had to worry about feeding all those people with
the loaves and fishes. Hey, you don't like it, tough.

[bannination]

[Leo Lyons]

She's pert near flat chested too; his weenie is hidden behind one leaf; what's yer point?
Poor observation by a "marshal".

(p.s.---they're "paintings"---not actual photographs; get it?)

[Leo Lyons]

I got your PM. I'm not interested in meeting you for a drink.

Sounds very familiar! Some of the same crap lines AlanS used to use.

I wonder....

[bannination]

She's pert near flat chested too; his weenie is hidden behind one leaf; what's yer point?
Poor observation by a "marshal".

(p.s.---they're "paintings"---not actual photographs; get it?)

Well, if you think deeper, as well as pay more attention, you'll notice most religious paintings do have some absurd things in them. Check them out sometime. As with painters of that type and music of that type, they leave subtle clues as to their true beliefs.

[Bungalow Bill]

Focus on the words belly buttons. Good one.

[Leo Lyons]

Well, if you think deeper, as well as pay more attention, you'll notice most religious paintings do have some absurd things in them. Check them out sometime. As with painters of that type and music of that type, they leave subtle clues as to their true beliefs.

Focus on the words belly buttons. Good one.

Q: Why did the blonde have bruises around her belly button?
A: Because blond guys are even dumber.

I think Leo Lyons must be a blond guy.

(p.s.---they're "paintings"---not actual photographs; get it?)

I knew I should have used regular sized print. No comprehension.

You dummies! Let's imagine for a moment that someone painted a picture just like that of Banni and his wife and the painter leaves off the navel from each of them. That would look pretty dumb, wouldn't it? In presenting the painting to Banni, the first thing he would notice is the missing navels. So according to Banni, that would leave subtle clues to the painter's true beliefs? Or would it be because the painter had absurd notions that portraits of people should not include the navel, unlike Banni's portrait that was painted with navels because the painter knew that humans have navels. Maybe an oversight since it was intended to be a portrait of "Adam and Eve"; or he knew he would be criticized for leaving off the navels, or that the portrait would look stupid?

I remember not too many years ago when nude paintings/photos of men and women in Japan had to have the genitals air-brushed out to make them illegible. There were no leaves or lumps, just smooth flesh. Does that mean the artist/photographer left subtle clues to his/her beliefs?? Good lord, Banni, are you running out of something to do? Go join an "offended" group somewhere; there's plenty of them around.

BTW; if any of us had seen that picture before you posted and commented on it, I wonder how many of us would have even paid attention to the navels? Had they not been there, that would have been noticed. Why? Because humans have navels. If humans evolved from scum and slime, why did we need navels to begin with?

[bannination]

Tennessee Christian quits job, refuses to file taxes over ’666′ on W-2 form