The birth of Jesus...Even children get it.

The birth of Jesus explained by children. For those of you who find the story too complicated.




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zduwusyip8M"]The Christmas Story (HD version) - YouTube[/ame]

 

i find this one better...and its probably more FACTUAL than your GAY "jebus"
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA"]He's Not The Messiah - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwCYJj4THQ"]Save Me, Jebus! - YouTube[/ame]
hahhahahhahahahha

 

Why are you trying to ram you religion down kids throats???

Having a religion is like having a dick, happy for you to have it just DONT whip it out in public and dont go shoving it down my or my childrens throats.

 

Hey Efjay. Look at yourself please.

 

lol jedi thats funny as mate....ALMOST as funny as your blind faith in gay jebus and the book of fairytales

 

Efjay's quote was very old and a bit vague, but at least it was on subject.

 

Because religions that are not rammed down kids' throats are considered dead.

 

many get santa too


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVgeFrEgT_4"]Sesame Street: Elmo Visits Santa - YouTube[/ame]

 

The story of Jesus (for dummies):

God created all time and space, he decided to give tiny little animals free will and punish them for all eternity should they decide to reject him on no other basis other than faith, he then impregnates a woman with himself, so they he can grow up and sacrifice himself to himself to convince himself to change the rules that he himself made in the first place.

Makes total sense.

 

I suggest reading some science text books.

 

You realize science and theism are not polar opposites right?

Exactly make cheap ad hominem attacks isn't going to go anywhere.

 

They are not opposites, but they are largely incompatible.

However the use of your little image demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic sciences.

Kettle, please meet the pot.

 

Yes, brainwashing children can be highly effective. The question is why is it being done and shouldn't it be considered as a form of child abuse?

 

Which aspects exactly? How would you respond to NOMA?

That was the point, I made a cheap ad hominem attack to show the ridiculousness of it.

 

This is one statement that I would be inclined to remember. It is true that they are largely incompatible since science is based upon emperical evidence and logical deduction while theism is based upon myth and superstition that lacks emperical evidence and logical thinking. Rarely would they ever share anything in common.

 

I believe science is based on logical induction actually. Are you saying that the cosmological or teleological arguments were not grounded in empiricism?

Get real. There are logical thinkers both atheist and theist (and agnostic and pantheist etc).

 

This one is my favorite:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6axdZAxyt2g"]Religion In A Nutshell - YouTube[/ame]

 

In religion, the entire human race came from two people, one of them being created from a rib.

Science using emperical evidence disagrees.

I can come up with quite a few more examples if you like. However, whatever contradicts what is known to be true to the scientific method, should fall to the side. There are plenty of things in religion that are simply not true.

Of course you did. A cheap ad hominem that has little basis in reality and demonstrates a simple lack of scientific understanding.

 

Something in a religious text just may just so happen to coincide with a known truth, however that is the extent of their commonality.

 

In a particular interpretation of one religion you mean?

A lot of Christians do not take a literalist view.

Sure like there were plenty of scientists who got stuff wrong, that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually because of quantum physics and the like "creatio ex nihlio" is becoming a fairly popular view. Well technically it isn't out of "nothing" since "nothing" doesn't exist even at a quantum level, merely fluctuations take up the 'base' of matter.

 

Not anymore, because it contradicts observations. However if a modern interpretation of religion is so relative and pliable, what purpose does it serve? Either it is all literal, or it is all metaphorical.

Actually, yes it does.

The world was believed to be flat. It is a sphere. The notion of it being flat is no longer useful or true, so why make any effort to save it? if x, y, or z, in a particular religion are false, then threw it to the wolves. It no longer serves a purpose in answering questions about the world that we live in.

Yes, this is correct, which is why the image you posted is not accurate in any sense of the word. A waste of bandwidth.

 

No-one has ever taken the Bible entirely literally, Jesus' parables for example are never taken literally. Neither is it entirely metaphorical. The core claims God exists, Jesus etc etc are literal. Simply because one spurious passage that may or may not be a correct translation is wrong doesn't mean the entire Bible is wrong.

Flat Earth is one belief is that belief is wrong then obviously we should not preserve it. Christianity's core beliefs haven't proven wrong by science and, since they're metaphysical in nature, are unlikely to ever be disproven in that way.

As with your image. Although some people's beliefs are more extreme that the universe is a re-organisation of nothing, for example.

 

I suggest reading the text books from the A'Beka Academy. I find it interesting that you say that no one takes the Bible literally, when that statement simply contradicts reality. A lot of people take the Bible literally, I don't think think you have talked to enough people if you believe what you do.

Would you like to discuss Russel's Teapot and other fallacies while we discuss the impracticality of proving a negative?

My image is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Your image is based on a non-existing or imagined "understanding" of science.

 

In that sense yes. But taking it literally doesn't mean metaphors doesn't exist. I gave an example of Jesus' parables even that academy don't believe that there was literally a farmer spreading his seeds (not a euphemism imo )

The point wasn't that since it couldn't be disproved it was therefore reasonable to think it true it was the point about NOMA. Science cannot tell us about the metaphysics although it can help with the premises in the arguments. Obviously I'm not the best person to give the arguments for Christianity, there are plenty of books and resources for that (and vice versa; you definitely aren't the best person to make the case for atheism lol).

Then your image does not represent the majority of Christians (most Christians are Catholics, Catholicism doesn't follow a literal interpretation.)

Are you denying that scientists have said that the universe is a "re-organization" of nothing?