I can see the cut of your Jib? Our arguments usually follow within the parameters of what is fact and what is fiction. But when anybody claims that they can transubstantiate their chromosomes by dint of wearing a pair of frilly knickers they are in the ball park of silly twerps who claim that when the priest performs the eucharist the wine suddenly literally amd physically converts into the blood of christ. That doesn’t prevent any individual from changing their birth assigned gender behaviours to that of the opposite that any given culture sets as the “norm”…whatever that is…
Am I missing the reference because I’m in the US? I don’t recall noticing this speech habit, but then there are a lot of types of speech I don’t listen to, including religious. Over here we talk normal.
There will be ever more of this. It’s not going away because microplastics are in our blood and in our lungs. They’ve been found in placentas. Like the Roman empire and lead plumbing… they are too useful to abandon.
Non standard and/or non traditional sexualities will become ever more common.
Now about Tucker Carlson: he says truly horrible racist things. I’d like him to follow Rush Limbaugh with all reasonable haste.
Simple way of determining whopperism or not. One simple question…do you believe that a flesh and blood walking talking Jesus existed…if they answer Yes they are a whopper and everything they say can be dismissed forthwith…
Indeed I have never watched a game show Jeopardy – I vaguely remember seeing part of some kind of evidently very popular game show at someone else’s home, but I’m not going to count that.
I can think of a speech trait that occasionally has rising inflection in declarative sentences – often along with “like”. E.g., “So I was like going out? and he was like kind of mad?” “Like” is arguably a way to round the corners off a statement, essentially undermining the content by allowing that it might not be exactly factual but just something like it. The not so declarative inflection might similarly step back from making a real declaration of fact.
On existence of a real historical Jesus person: I too would be inclined to believe there was one. I’d guess there were several.
JB you’re not even in the ball park, the chances of anybody being the myth man described in the bible IS very unlikely. You have been reading far too much xtian apologetics my friend…Jesus is basically a mish mash of a bunch of mythical supermen…sort of an ancient fantastic four rolled up into one made up geezer…
Did a Jesus exist in reality? To me that means:
— the Jesus stories that come to us from the Christian tradition, go back to real events,
— and at that event there was someone who is remembered today as “Jesus.”
It doesn’t mean that the real Jesus really did what the stories say he did, or said what he’s supposed to have said, or that there was anything supernatural going on at all. It just means there was some guy “Jesus” who sold people of his day some religious hokum. He, or one or more of them, were probably executed by the Romans – why not? Happened to a lot of people. Today he’s supposed to have done this and said that, conceived parthenogenetically or something, and we might well be skeptical, but that the story has its origins in a real event … it’s the simplest explanation.
Thats just it Donn. The problem with wriiten history is that most of it is made up and resembles nothing like whay actually happened. Its all chinese whispers…and since the bible was ratified and set down 400 years after the myth of jesus suppossedly originated. All the shite in the bible is xtian propaganda…nothing more, nothing less. With no concrete archaelogical data to support the claim. A real Jesus was unlikely compared with the evidence that his myth is based on other very very similar myths. The burden of proof falls on tbose making a very dodgy hypothesis. ANYBODY with a modicum of science nouse would grasp that line of thinking…
Sure, ancient history is low quality information. What assurance do we have that Socrates existed, etc.? — But then, who cares? At this point, a modicum of low quality information will do, because it makes no real difference.
If that statement dated from 300 years ago, we’d laugh, because it would have been politically impossible for a bunch of scholars to conclude anything other than what supports their church. Maybe conditions are not that different today, and you may laugh if you will, but … as I say, it makes no real difference.
(You will still make some mistakes, but will be less likely to.)
Of course, ancient scribes and copyists made mistakes, and the mistakes were copied, etc etc ad (almost) infinitim. Or is it ad infinitem, or ad infinitame?
jb above:
“It’s reasonably likely that a walking talking Jesus did exist. What’s much less likely is that he ever walked on water.”
I’d empirically submit that if he did exist and did walk on water,
he did not exist for much longer.
OK, that was a bit of an ellipsoid or whatever – I never did do that experiment. I’d recommend against it.
Well,
the Walking On Water may actually HAVE happened.
The easiest explanation: it was really freezing. (I did it myself many times).
But then the text would likely have been: he walked on ice; and no big deal would have been made out of it.
Second explanation: he (or his helpers) planned and prepared ahead, and placed stepping stones just below the surface. All he needed to do was carefully memorize their exact locations.
M27Holts — Why do you have a problem with believing that there might have been an actual person named “Jesus” who had something to do with the founding of Christianity? I can believe in the historical existence of Mohammad or Buddha without being a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Whether or not there were real existent people that became the center of belief, or whether they were made up, we know one thing with certainty: the miracles recounted in the myths are false.
Moreover, the supposed miracles they performed are trivial and stupid.
Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, and Buddha would have one thing in common: if shown the world as it is today, they would alternate between thinking it was run by demons or by powerful magicians.
Just imagine any one of them walking into a modern western supermarket. By the time they got out of the car they’d be weeping. When the doors slid open – by themselves – they’d gasp. The huge bounty of food would make them forget the existence of poverty. In fact they’d be gobsmacked even just by grocery displays of cans of baked beans. (And the bacon in the beans would make them discard any ancient religious dietary laws. 🙂 )
In fact, in London or New York City, all but homeless people have it better than almost all people during the times of these religious avatars.
Our modern life comes at great cost, and it isn’t miraculous. Miracles are the fantasies of the helpless, not the reality of tiny day to day advances, over centuries. Life improves in tiny increments over hundreds of years. The myths of Mohammed’s crying date-palm trees, Jesus’s loaves and fishes, Moses’s tablets from Sinai, or Buddha’s levitation don’t do anything for anyone.
I formed my jesus as myth man from my own scientific contemplation after reading Homo Sapiens. The mass of non scientific proof and xtian propaganda is all spouted by “scholars” who have an agenda to push. Give me solid scientific proof that Jebus was a real geezer and I will believe. I think I am more likely to be right than wrong on this…and if Jesus was made up..the whole of xtianity is based on bullshit and the xtian apologists just won’t have that will they?
jb: True. Also depends on the depth of sole (or soul?)
Laripu: Reminds me of a children’s tv series early 1970’s about a wizard, Catweasel, who accidentally escaped a mere 1000 years into the future and was rescued from a well by a young boy. He was constantly preplexed by the magic so easily performed by the kid, from using the “telling bone” to “electrickery” in many forms.
Mockingbird, DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCK?
Odd sock is an anti-bullying campaign, so it surely can’t be Yahweh, Shiva, or Apis. More likely the Mormon’s Elohim. Their Godhead refers to a council of three distinct divine persons. Being they are all-in-one it could easily mess with their sock drawer. Odds are on the trinity for a mismatched pair.
M27Holts, regarding “that when the priest performs the Eucharist the wine suddenly literally and physically converts into the blood of Christ”.
“If anyone thinks that I amn’t divine
He’ll get no free drinks when I’m making the wine
But have to drink water and wish it were plain
That I make when the wine becomes water again.”
― James Joyce, Ulysses
Postdog’ _ DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCKS?
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently claimed to “know the nature of God” in the press while he posed carrying a lightweight wooden cross from Ikea. Do you suppose, in his infinite wisdom, he could answer us this simple question?
Re Rwanda? Let’s see if I follow the argument … “nature of God” is elucidated as “took responsibility for our failures.”
If you turn away refugees and instead send them to Rwanda, which is “a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers”, but apparently not as attractive a destination, then you aren’t taking responsibility for someone else’s failures … I’m not perfectly clear on the details here, but something like that? Unlike God, who would apparently let them in.
Of course, God would also be omnipotent and able to serve up whatever for whomever. Maybe that’s why “playing God” is not typically encouraged, because we aren’t really set up to have the nature of God, even with a Queen and everything.
I think the god hypothesis is proven false. Yet the arguments go on and on…this is like the two philosophers being told by deep thought to keep themselves on the gravy train while he calculates the meaning of life….
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
July 27, 2022
Religion hates questions but claims to have all the answers. I can understand why Mo hates the upspeak.
Dopy speech mannerisms can be SO ANNOYING. Mo should slap a fatwa on Jesus. Not a fatwa? but a fatwa.
I read this and had the most revolting thought which I naturally must share: Tucker Carlson’s bible study.
Without t’internet I would not know who Tucker Carlson was. He looks like a right WHOPPER….
Tucker Carlson is a christofascist, and thus, aligns with the average Jesus and Mo commentator on issues of gender identity
Christo-facist? Average jesus and mo commentator? Gender Identity?
I can see the cut of your Jib? Our arguments usually follow within the parameters of what is fact and what is fiction. But when anybody claims that they can transubstantiate their chromosomes by dint of wearing a pair of frilly knickers they are in the ball park of silly twerps who claim that when the priest performs the eucharist the wine suddenly literally amd physically converts into the blood of christ. That doesn’t prevent any individual from changing their birth assigned gender behaviours to that of the opposite that any given culture sets as the “norm”…whatever that is…
Great one, like really really dope, like, I mean, uptalk is so 2010. Y’know?
Am I missing the reference because I’m in the US? I don’t recall noticing this speech habit, but then there are a lot of types of speech I don’t listen to, including religious. Over here we talk normal.
M27Holts, there’s a mental condition called Asomatognosia, a feeling that a long doesn’t belong to you. It is real.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asomatognosia
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that people feel that way about the sex that were born with. A genuine feeling, not a transubstantiation. More so because we’ve been eating and drinking endocrine disruptors for generations. It’s more surprising to me that people aren’t being born infertile. There is this: https://theconversation.com/male-fertility-is-declining-studies-show-that-environmental-toxins-could-be-a-reason-163795
There will be ever more of this. It’s not going away because microplastics are in our blood and in our lungs. They’ve been found in placentas. Like the Roman empire and lead plumbing… they are too useful to abandon.
Non standard and/or non traditional sexualities will become ever more common.
Now about Tucker Carlson: he says truly horrible racist things. I’d like him to follow Rush Limbaugh with all reasonable haste.
Donn, you mean to say you’ve never watched the game show jeoparDY?
Laripu…
Now that Rush is dead and gone,
someone else must carry on;
a Hannitty, Ingraham, or some other sucker,
but there could never, ever be
another Tucker.
Simple way of determining whopperism or not. One simple question…do you believe that a flesh and blood walking talking Jesus existed…if they answer Yes they are a whopper and everything they say can be dismissed forthwith…
It’s reasonably likely that a walking talking Jesus did exist. What’s much less likely is that he ever walked on water.
Indeed I have never watched a game show Jeopardy – I vaguely remember seeing part of some kind of evidently very popular game show at someone else’s home, but I’m not going to count that.
I can think of a speech trait that occasionally has rising inflection in declarative sentences – often along with “like”. E.g., “So I was like going out? and he was like kind of mad?” “Like” is arguably a way to round the corners off a statement, essentially undermining the content by allowing that it might not be exactly factual but just something like it. The not so declarative inflection might similarly step back from making a real declaration of fact.
On existence of a real historical Jesus person: I too would be inclined to believe there was one. I’d guess there were several.
JB you’re not even in the ball park, the chances of anybody being the myth man described in the bible IS very unlikely. You have been reading far too much xtian apologetics my friend…Jesus is basically a mish mash of a bunch of mythical supermen…sort of an ancient fantastic four rolled up into one made up geezer…
More proof that father xmas, exists Donn. Once you start spouting shite without a shred of concrete evidence you are with the faith heads I’m afraid…
DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCKS?
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Did a Jesus exist in reality? To me that means:
— the Jesus stories that come to us from the Christian tradition, go back to real events,
— and at that event there was someone who is remembered today as “Jesus.”
It doesn’t mean that the real Jesus really did what the stories say he did, or said what he’s supposed to have said, or that there was anything supernatural going on at all. It just means there was some guy “Jesus” who sold people of his day some religious hokum. He, or one or more of them, were probably executed by the Romans – why not? Happened to a lot of people. Today he’s supposed to have done this and said that, conceived parthenogenetically or something, and we might well be skeptical, but that the story has its origins in a real event … it’s the simplest explanation.
Thats just it Donn. The problem with wriiten history is that most of it is made up and resembles nothing like whay actually happened. Its all chinese whispers…and since the bible was ratified and set down 400 years after the myth of jesus suppossedly originated. All the shite in the bible is xtian propaganda…nothing more, nothing less. With no concrete archaelogical data to support the claim. A real Jesus was unlikely compared with the evidence that his myth is based on other very very similar myths. The burden of proof falls on tbose making a very dodgy hypothesis. ANYBODY with a modicum of science nouse would grasp that line of thinking…
Loose lips , sink ships…
Sure, ancient history is low quality information. What assurance do we have that Socrates existed, etc.? — But then, who cares? At this point, a modicum of low quality information will do, because it makes no real difference.
From wikipedia …
Virtually all biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted, and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.
If that statement dated from 300 years ago, we’d laugh, because it would have been politically impossible for a bunch of scholars to conclude anything other than what supports their church. Maybe conditions are not that different today, and you may laugh if you will, but … as I say, it makes no real difference.
Oh I wish I could edit that post.
Donn: Proofread and edit before submitting!
(You will still make some mistakes, but will be less likely to.)
Of course, ancient scribes and copyists made mistakes, and the mistakes were copied, etc etc ad (almost) infinitim. Or is it ad infinitem, or ad infinitame?
Ad infinitum!
jb above:
“It’s reasonably likely that a walking talking Jesus did exist. What’s much less likely is that he ever walked on water.”
I’d empirically submit that if he did exist and did walk on water,
he did not exist for much longer.
OK, that was a bit of an ellipsoid or whatever – I never did do that experiment. I’d recommend against it.
I blame others.
Well,
the Walking On Water may actually HAVE happened.
The easiest explanation: it was really freezing. (I did it myself many times).
But then the text would likely have been: he walked on ice; and no big deal would have been made out of it.
Second explanation: he (or his helpers) planned and prepared ahead, and placed stepping stones just below the surface. All he needed to do was carefully memorize their exact locations.
M27Holts — Why do you have a problem with believing that there might have been an actual person named “Jesus” who had something to do with the founding of Christianity? I can believe in the historical existence of Mohammad or Buddha without being a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Rrr– It would depend on the depth of the water! 🙂
Whether or not there were real existent people that became the center of belief, or whether they were made up, we know one thing with certainty: the miracles recounted in the myths are false.
Moreover, the supposed miracles they performed are trivial and stupid.
Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, and Buddha would have one thing in common: if shown the world as it is today, they would alternate between thinking it was run by demons or by powerful magicians.
Just imagine any one of them walking into a modern western supermarket. By the time they got out of the car they’d be weeping. When the doors slid open – by themselves – they’d gasp. The huge bounty of food would make them forget the existence of poverty. In fact they’d be gobsmacked even just by grocery displays of cans of baked beans. (And the bacon in the beans would make them discard any ancient religious dietary laws. 🙂 )
In fact, in London or New York City, all but homeless people have it better than almost all people during the times of these religious avatars.
Our modern life comes at great cost, and it isn’t miraculous. Miracles are the fantasies of the helpless, not the reality of tiny day to day advances, over centuries. Life improves in tiny increments over hundreds of years. The myths of Mohammed’s crying date-palm trees, Jesus’s loaves and fishes, Moses’s tablets from Sinai, or Buddha’s levitation don’t do anything for anyone.
I formed my jesus as myth man from my own scientific contemplation after reading Homo Sapiens. The mass of non scientific proof and xtian propaganda is all spouted by “scholars” who have an agenda to push. Give me solid scientific proof that Jebus was a real geezer and I will believe. I think I am more likely to be right than wrong on this…and if Jesus was made up..the whole of xtianity is based on bullshit and the xtian apologists just won’t have that will they?
We already KNOW that Jesus and the bible are bollox.
DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCK?
jb: True. Also depends on the depth of sole (or soul?)
Laripu: Reminds me of a children’s tv series early 1970’s about a wizard, Catweasel, who accidentally escaped a mere 1000 years into the future and was rescued from a well by a young boy. He was constantly preplexed by the magic so easily performed by the kid, from using the “telling bone” to “electrickery” in many forms.
Geofrey Bayldon played Catweazle….I loved that program as a kid….A druid catapulted through time into the 1970’s…Electrickery indeed…
Mockingbird, DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCK?
Odd sock is an anti-bullying campaign, so it surely can’t be Yahweh, Shiva, or Apis. More likely the Mormon’s Elohim. Their Godhead refers to a council of three distinct divine persons. Being they are all-in-one it could easily mess with their sock drawer. Odds are on the trinity for a mismatched pair.
M27Holts, regarding “that when the priest performs the Eucharist the wine suddenly literally and physically converts into the blood of Christ”.
“If anyone thinks that I amn’t divine
He’ll get no free drinks when I’m making the wine
But have to drink water and wish it were plain
That I make when the wine becomes water again.”
― James Joyce, Ulysses
Postdog’ _ DOES GOD WEAR ODD SOCKS?
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently claimed to “know the nature of God” in the press while he posed carrying a lightweight wooden cross from Ikea. Do you suppose, in his infinite wisdom, he could answer us this simple question?
Postdog’ – I think JJ was taking the piss .. .. ..
Aye. He was spinning an e-piss-tle and suggesting that Jebus and his little imps liked a bit of water sports….me thinks….
Yeah well the archbashbishop of Cunterbury would have to spin the party line innit…jobless without a set of worthwhile job skills….
Re Rwanda? Let’s see if I follow the argument … “nature of God” is elucidated as “took responsibility for our failures.”
If you turn away refugees and instead send them to Rwanda, which is “a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers”, but apparently not as attractive a destination, then you aren’t taking responsibility for someone else’s failures … I’m not perfectly clear on the details here, but something like that? Unlike God, who would apparently let them in.
Of course, God would also be omnipotent and able to serve up whatever for whomever. Maybe that’s why “playing God” is not typically encouraged, because we aren’t really set up to have the nature of God, even with a Queen and everything.
I think the god hypothesis is proven false. Yet the arguments go on and on…this is like the two philosophers being told by deep thought to keep themselves on the gravy train while he calculates the meaning of life….
I’m not sure if they are odd, but you can bet god’s socks are holey. Hence the expression God Darn It!
(apologies) 🙂
SB – Brilliant !! :-}
May the 4th be with you all. 🙂