If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Cheerleaders protest after they're told they can't hang banners with religious quotes at a high school football game. "If it's offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game"   (timesfreepress.com) divider line 648
    More: Asinine, banners, high school football, cheerleaders, football coach, Mr. Jones, freedom of religion, Dear Leader, U.S. Supreme Court  
•       •       •

13774 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2009 at 9:59 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



648 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-29 11:22:15 PM  
Darth Invictus: WTF is up with the cheerleader chicks these days? At my high school in the early 80's, they were more into smoking weed and drinking than this religious garbage.

did you go to high school in north Georgia???
 
2009-09-29 11:22:22 PM  
Egalitarian: Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).

.. Except the whole thing about homosexuals isn't only in the OT.
 
2009-09-29 11:23:21 PM  
Nuns, or cheerleaders?
 
2009-09-29 11:24:06 PM  
Never mind the religious angle, that's quite a long and cumbersome quote to put on a banner.
 
2009-09-29 11:24:55 PM  
Cheerleaders? Cheerleader thread!
My father used to live in a apartment in Burbank in the early 90s late 80s. The Oakland LA raiders leased the building next door for their Cheerleaders.
It had a pool...best summer of my life...
 
2009-09-29 11:25:21 PM  
Egalitarian: Seriously, I want to know why athletes and sports fans think God favors them over their opponents, and why you would drag your Creator into such petty events.

In our town, the pre-game prayer (given by a student) asks God to watch over the players and keep them safe. It isn't about asking for a win.
 
2009-09-29 11:25:25 PM  
how the hell has this gone on for 7 football seasons and only now someone complains?

jeez remind me never to move to Chattanooga.
 
2009-09-29 11:25:25 PM  
Obamas Fark Czar: buckler: TsukasaK: Kitdfaos: The cheerleaders might want to read Leviticus 11:7 and 8.
The pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

New covenant replaced old covenant, etc. Jesus tap-dancing christ on a cracker, I get tired of explaining this.

Cool, except that Christians still reference the Old Testament when convenient, as in the treatment of homosexuality...

I'll just leave this here.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


In response to your second Biblical quote, I shall refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in 2007-APR. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

Williams said that Romans 1 favors neither side in the debate over equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion
 
2009-09-29 11:25:45 PM  
This is one in the nursery at church:
"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed"

/back to the religious cheerleader bashing.
 
2009-09-29 11:26:05 PM  
Egalitarian: Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).

Do you have an example of this?
 
2009-09-29 11:26:07 PM  
Somacandra: Bible Lines You Never See on Football Banners:

Malachi 2:3

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

/my all time fave
 
2009-09-29 11:26:13 PM  
TsukasaK: Except the whole thing about homosexuals isn't only in the OT.

Further proof that both testaments are retarded.
 
2009-09-29 11:26:22 PM  
Egalitarian: Alien Robot: buckler: You heard it here first, folks...the Old Testament now is applicable completely to Jews, and no other people. Christians no longer have to comply. Go nuts.

Since when have they ever had to comply with the Old Testament law? Hasn't it always been that way?

Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).


CHRISTians follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Those lessons are all in the New Testament. Is that too difficult to grasp??
 
2009-09-29 11:26:29 PM  
Reminds me of this.

/because God cares about sports
 
2009-09-29 11:26:53 PM  
Dirty Hot Linker: Wow, the comment section of TFA has utter disregard for the law and doesn't understand what religious freedom entails.



yeah, this. wow. I live in South Texas, and the comments section of my paper has a lot of that crap, but wow, this one puts Texas to shame.
 
2009-09-29 11:27:18 PM  
Five Constipated Men

There were five, five, constipated men
In the Bible, in the Bible
There five, five, constipated men
In the five books of Moses

The first, first, constipated man
Was Cain, he wasn't Abel
The first, first, constipated man
Was Cain, he wasn't Abel


CHORUS

The second, second, constipated man
Was Noah, he floated for forty years
The second, second, constipated man
Was Noah, he floated for forty years
CHORUS

The third, third constipated man
Was Balaam, he couldn't move his ass
The third, third constipated man
Was Balaam, he couldn't move his ass

CHORUS

The fourth, fourth, constipated man
Was Moses, he took two tablets
The fourth, fourth, constipated man
Was Moses, he took two tablets


CHORUS

The fifth, fifth constipated man
Was Samson, he brought the house down
The fifth, fifth constipated man
Was Samson, he brought the house down
CHORUS
 
2009-09-29 11:27:26 PM  
Obligatory:

api.ning.com
 
2009-09-29 11:27:41 PM  
TsukasaK: Egalitarian: Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).

.. Except the whole thing about homosexuals isn't only in the OT.


The opponents I've seen refer to the OT the most.
 
2009-09-29 11:27:52 PM  
Egalitarian: Alien Robot: buckler: You heard it here first, folks...the Old Testament now is applicable completely to Jews, and no other people. Christians no longer have to comply. Go nuts.

Since when have they ever had to comply with the Old Testament law? Hasn't it always been that way?

Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).


This gives me the second-best idea I've had all night (after the one where we give the Washington Generals flamethrowers at halftime).

I could, we all could, be living by Ezekiel 25:17, as laid out in the Tarantino Revised Standard:

img10.imageshack.us


"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"
 
2009-09-29 11:27:58 PM  
Asako: Dinjiin: IonBeam2: Doesn't the Bible also say something about dressing modestly?

If they're not wearing a 100% polyester fabric uniform, can I stone them to death for violating Deuteronomy 22:11?

We're not Jews...


If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you.
 
2009-09-29 11:28:02 PM  
cptjeff: zcat: rpm: ipeeintheshower: It's sad that people don't read the Constitution before invoking it.

It's sad that people don't read the precedents (mentioned in TFA even) that give the reasoning.

No, plenty of them have read the precedent.

The rationale was probably along the lines of "Well, this version will be better for people, but they're far too ignorant for it to actually be added as an Amendment. ...Let's take this metaphor used by one of the Founding Fathers in an explanation of his personal actions, expand it to hell and back, then try to claim that the First Amendment really means that, instead."

Of course, once someone has decided that the Constitution says whatever they think is reasonable instead of what it actually says, pretty much anything is fair game.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, let me explain the history for you. The Jefferson letter is relevant because it's him explaining what the hell he meant when he wrote the damned thing. Jefferson was the author of two amendments at the time- the first was freedom of speech, the second was religious freedom, based on the similar law he had written for Virginia before. When Madison got them, he edited the two together into one to make it more readable and to make a nice even number, 12 instead of 13. Two weren't ratified, leaving us with the current 10. One of those 2 later became the 27th- congressional raises don't take effect until the next session. Procedural stuff.

Basically, Madison farked it up for the rest of us. Jefferson had two amendments that were concise and clear, Madison decided to combine them, but didn't intend to change any of the meaning.

Hence, Jefferson explaining the purpose of the first amendment in that letter is, other the federalist papers, one of the only documents we have where somebody involved with writing the damned thing explains what the hell they were thinking with that part. You know the whole "founder intent" thing conservatives drone on about? Yeah, that's what the "wall of separation" thing is.

Here's the paragraph from the letter in question:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Here's what I see:

Jefferson reaffirms his belief in the freedom of worship and of personal beliefs. He cites the First Amendment as a limit on the powers of the legislature that prevents the latter from making laws regarding religion. He refers to this metaphorically as "building a wall of separation between church and state". The next sentence describes Jefferson's personal actions and the reasoning behind them.

If I have misread or misunderstood part of this paragraph (the other two were simply the greeting and closing of the letter, so I omitted them), please enlighten me.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could honestly reach the decision that they did based on this letter. At best, they're using the metaphor as a guide instead of the precise definition, which is a reversal of everything that sense tells me. Furthermore, what Jefferson -one man- wanted and what the Constitution said in its final form do not have to be the same.
 
2009-09-29 11:28:47 PM  
thurstonxhowell: TsukasaK: Except the whole thing about homosexuals isn't only in the OT.

Further proof that both testaments are retarded.


You are the polar opposite of the people in the article. The only thing you have in common is stupidity. Extremists are all the same, not matter which end they are on.
 
2009-09-29 11:28:48 PM  
RevMercutio: Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

In response to your second Biblical quote, I shall refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in 2007-APR. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

Williams said that Romans 1 favors neither side in the debate over equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion


..wait, so they basically condemn homosexuals in the NT, but it doesn't mean anything because the whole thing is an object lesson about not being judgemental?

WAT
 
2009-09-29 11:29:00 PM  
Here are some thoughts...

1. this thread needs more cheerleader pics.

2. Imagine (and you'll have to imagine, because we're talking about GA here), if there was a non-believer/atheist cheerleader or football player at LFO... how does the kids feel about holding up that banner or crashing through it before the beginning of the game? (okay, fine, crashing through it might make me feel good...). I guess the kid could just keep their mouth shut and go with it, eventually moving as far away from home as possible as soon as HS is done...

3. More likely, that the cheerleaders are holding up this kind of barely relevant banner is their way of publicly expressing their faith. This is not an innocent act or an attempt to simply "use scripture" to cheer on their team. They could have used any of the thousands of varieties of non-denominational, secular cliches instead. But they are not just cheering on their team, they're cheerleading for the lord. If it's a church team or an xtian school (not funded by the government), then sure, but for a public school team, there's no place for this.

4. Now, with that kind of culture on the team, what do you think the chances are of a kid making the team if they don't follow suit and cheerlead for the lord? I would love to see some atheist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, whatever with the skills to make the team get cut and take the case to court. As lame as the Jesus-warrior behaviour of these kids is (and the persecuted xtians who are supporting them in public protests and online comments sections), the real problem, the real slippery slope is in the discrimination against non-believers who don't fit the evangelical mold of the people in charge of the team.

/might be an effective psych-out technique... if I was on the opposing team, I'd be too busy laughing at the absurdity of the banner to actually get up and play ball...
//did I mention that TTIWWOmoreP?
 
2009-09-29 11:29:09 PM  
davidphogan: Either the old testament counts or it doesn't, for example.

Well, one serious answer, given by some people sincere in trying to determine exactly which laws of the Old Testament apply and which don't, is that all the laws which are explicitly said to have been fulfilled by Jesus coming to earth in the New Testament are done and no longer apply, but any others still do.

From that basic "that's how you know" point, different groups argue endlessly of course, and some divide the law into 2 groups, others 3, etc.
 
2009-09-29 11:29:23 PM  
TsukasaK: black_knight: TsukasaK: Hau Ruck: but you know as well as I do that high-school kids don't have 1st amendment rights of any kind.

Supreme court disagrees with you there, chief.
Tell that to the "Bong Hits 4 Jebus" kid.

Freedom of speech does not apply to advocating illegal drug use on school grounds. Try again.


Didn't happen on school grounds. Try again.
 
2009-09-29 11:29:43 PM  
Bible Lines You Never See On Football Banners

"O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised. I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate."

Song of Solomon 8:1-2
 
2009-09-29 11:29:50 PM  
itazurakko: Heh. That would make a good Top Ten series. Some of the purely non-sequitur ones could also be good to mix it up a little. Psy-ops, sorta.

LOL! I love the idea of using non-sequitur Bible quotes. It would leave them scratching their heads in bafflement, but they wouldn't have any reason to complain about it.
 
2009-09-29 11:30:14 PM  
SkinnyHead: Cheerleaders shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Ok SkinnyHead, despite what you've said in every other thread, this was intentionally funny and I lol'd.
 
2009-09-29 11:30:18 PM  
black_knight: TsukasaK: black_knight: TsukasaK: Hau Ruck: but you know as well as I do that high-school kids don't have 1st amendment rights of any kind.

Supreme court disagrees with you there, chief.
Tell that to the "Bong Hits 4 Jebus" kid.

Freedom of speech does not apply to advocating illegal drug use on school grounds. Try again.

Didn't happen on school grounds. Try again.


No, it happened on the sidewalk out front of the school during a school function where people were everywhere.
 
2009-09-29 11:30:30 PM  
zedster: Five Constipated Men

Haha. Excellent.
 
2009-09-29 11:30:40 PM  
i10.photobucket.com
 
2009-09-29 11:30:49 PM  
RevMercutio: TsukasaK: Egalitarian: Funny how hardcore Christians pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they feel like adhering to (and feel everyone else should, too).

.. Except the whole thing about homosexuals isn't only in the OT.

The opponents I've seen refer to the OT the most.


The only reference in the NT is by Paul, and he was a sick fark.
 
2009-09-29 11:31:05 PM  
TsukasaK: RevMercutio: Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

In response to your second Biblical quote, I shall refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in 2007-APR. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

Williams said that Romans 1 favors neither side in the debate over equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion

..wait, so they basically condemn homosexuals in the NT, but it doesn't mean anything because the whole thing is an object lesson about not being judgemental?

WAT


Do you really believe that fark is a good arena for serious discussions of the Bible?? One side is so anti-God that it is laughable and the other side usually gets the interpretation wrong.
 
2009-09-29 11:31:44 PM  
Darth Invictus: LOL! I love the idea of using non-sequitur Bible quotes. It would leave them scratching their heads in bafflement, but they wouldn't have any reason to complain about it.

Plus the other team! It'd be... wait, they're trying to intimidate us, right? Wait... what? *confusion and missed interceptions*

/ideally
 
2009-09-29 11:31:50 PM  
Primus: The only reference in the NT is by Paul, and he was a sick fark.

Aaaand yet it's in the bible. As if we don't have enough accounts in there of people being sick farks and then making a total 180.

(or vice versa)
 
2009-09-29 11:31:56 PM  
Obamas Fark Czar: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;

GOD MAKES PEOPLE GAY! LOL!
 
2009-09-29 11:32:04 PM  
sepuku2: Same old story: Some snowflake atheist get's his panties in a wad because a school want's to intimidate!Infarkingtimidate! his ass with religious text in a public setting. OMFG! will be the next outlawed text that gets killed by the turd herders and their ilk. Good luck with changing laws and denying America's Christian Puritan beginnings and culture. I mean we came here to found one nation under God but, Oh noes some cocksucking homo gets a stick poked up his ass and loses his shiat, then files another meaningless lawsuit vis a vis Madelyn Murray O'Hare. I can't wait till the Hispanic and largely Catholics, burn his ass at the stake and the Mighty Poop congratulates them for ridding the world of a Demon. You Go Amigos! DNRTFA!

/As some of you know, I'm drunk by now. See you at 5:00 AM with a new and unhindered, moderate viewpoint.


And here I thought our foundations were rooted in Freemasonry. Thank you for opening my eyes.
 
2009-09-29 11:32:58 PM  
We did this story at my station and I gotta say I support the cheerleaders.

Not because I'm Christian of anything, but because the football players run through the banners ripping them to shreds.

That's right....the word of God is ripped to shreds in front of a cheering crowd every friday night.

What's not to love about that?
 
2009-09-29 11:33:11 PM  
drew46n2: this one puts Texas to shame.

The only justification I can make that will help me sleep at night is that Freeperland must have a linked the article and bombarded the TFA w/ comments. I bet 90% of those commenting have an @aol.com email address as their primary email.
 
2009-09-29 11:33:42 PM  
nicksteel: Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Interpretation? Since when is any interpretation required? I thought the Bible was the plain and truthful words of God. Why would God require any interpretation of His holy word? Doesn't it stand for itself?
 
2009-09-29 11:34:35 PM  
nicksteel: Do you really believe that fark is a good arena for serious discussions of the Bible??

Hardly - but it's one of the few places you can have a discussion of the bible while feeling free to call a farking idiot a farking idiot.

Besides, it's fun pissing off the militants from both sides.
 
2009-09-29 11:34:40 PM  
misanthropologist: Here are some thoughts...

1. this thread needs more cheerleader pics.

2. Imagine (and you'll have to imagine, because we're talking about GA here), if there was a non-believer/atheist cheerleader or football player at LFO... how does the kids feel about holding up that banner or crashing through it before the beginning of the game? (okay, fine, crashing through it might make me feel good...). I guess the kid could just keep their mouth shut and go with it, eventually moving as far away from home as possible as soon as HS is done...

3. More likely, that the cheerleaders are holding up this kind of barely relevant banner is their way of publicly expressing their faith. This is not an innocent act or an attempt to simply "use scripture" to cheer on their team. They could have used any of the thousands of varieties of non-denominational, secular cliches instead. But they are not just cheering on their team, they're cheerleading for the lord. If it's a church team or an xtian school (not funded by the government), then sure, but for a public school team, there's no place for this.

4. Now, with that kind of culture on the team, what do you think the chances are of a kid making the team if they don't follow suit and cheerlead for the lord? I would love to see some atheist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, whatever with the skills to make the team get cut and take the case to court. As lame as the Jesus-warrior behaviour of these kids is (and the persecuted xtians who are supporting them in public protests and online comments sections), the real problem, the real slippery slope is in the discrimination against non-believers who don't fit the evangelical mold of the people in charge of the team.

/might be an effective psych-out technique... if I was on the opposing team, I'd be too busy laughing at the absurdity of the banner to actually get up and play ball...
//did I mention that TTIWWOmoreP?


I've been through that part of the country and I am pretty sure that the number of atheists willing to admit it number no higher than ZERO. They might have a few Jews in the area but Muslims and Hindus would be in serious danger.

That place is heart and soul bible belt.
 
2009-09-29 11:35:04 PM  
Dirty Hot Linker: drew46n2: this one puts Texas to shame.

The only justification I can make that will help me sleep at night is that Freeperland must have a linked the article and bombarded the TFA w/ comments. I bet 90% of those commenting have an @aol.com email address as their primary email.


Screw that. I'd still be betting on .webtv
 
2009-09-29 11:35:16 PM  
TsukasaK: nicksteel: Do you really believe that fark is a good arena for serious discussions of the Bible??

Hardly - but it's one of the few places you can have a discussion of the bible while feeling free to call a farking idiot a farking idiot.

Besides, it's fun pissing off the militants from both sides.


then by all means - proceed.
 
2009-09-29 11:35:47 PM  
davidphogan: farkin_Gary: Never mind their taunts, zepplinrules. They test you for a while then simply close their minds and slap you on their ignore lists if you contradict the trappings of their clique.

They're funny that way.

Or not.

I keep reading to see how idiots are able to explain the bible is important, other than the parts that aren't convenient anymore because they'd make people look like bigots or just crazy.

Either the old testament counts or it doesn't, for example.


I just stick to principles, generalities, and common sense, while keeping my faith to myself unless someone asks me specific questions about it.

Never had a problem with anyone calling me a wild eyed funie bible thumper.
 
2009-09-29 11:35:47 PM  
 
2009-09-29 11:35:59 PM  
buckler: nicksteel: Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Interpretation? Since when is any interpretation required? I thought the Bible was the plain and truthful words of God. Why would God require any interpretation of His holy word? Doesn't it stand for itself?


Not like half of it was written in Greek, and the other half written in Aramaic.. Oh, and for bonus points, Aramaic has no vowels! Interpretation of the language is left up to the reader/speaker.

TMYK.
 
2009-09-29 11:36:24 PM  
Darth Invictus: itazurakko: Heh. That would make a good Top Ten series. Some of the purely non-sequitur ones could also be good to mix it up a little. Psy-ops, sorta.

LOL! I love the idea of using non-sequitur Bible quotes. It would leave them scratching their heads in bafflement, but they wouldn't have any reason to complain about it.


That's my big problem with all this. I'd be a lot cooler with all of this if the cheerleaders were a little more CREATIVE with the material they have to work with. It might actually work as a psy-ops psych out too for the other team's fans, and boost attendance at games as people wonder what they're gonna bust out.
 
2009-09-29 11:36:25 PM  
What's the odds that these dippy cheerleaders couldn't think up anything actually good to put on these banners so they just went with the old Bible quote standby?
 
Displayed 50 of 648 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report