Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The New York Times)   Mitt may go to Israel to explain why Mormons posthumously baptize Holocaust victims   (nytimes.com) divider line 271
    More: Fail, romney, Mormons, Holocaust victims, Holocaust, US Ambassador, eyes, Israel lobby in the United States, Boston Consulting Group  
•       •       •

7369 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2012 at 12:49 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-03 04:17:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: Putting him on a list on a silly website is hardly the same.


If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".
But when the list simply says "baptized," and dates are only shown when looking at one page of several, then it starts looking suspicious. Furthermore, when the fix is that easy, what is it saying that the Mormons haven't done so? Are they really saying that they're so incompetent at website design that they can't add a flag indicating a posthumous baptism? Or is it more of a "we don't think you should be offended, so therefore, we're not going to take even the teeniest step to avoid offending you"?
Because if so, that's a major dick move.
 
2012-07-03 04:17:45 PM  
Silly Jesus
So, basically, Mormons shouldn't do this because stupid people, and those too lazy to / unable to do research may be baffled at some later date?

If the Mormons were wiping the internet / libraries / various archives clean of Richard Dawkins' thoughts and replacing them with Mormon nonsense, I'd completely agree with you. Putting him on a list on a silly website is hardly the same.

I think you're missing some stuff about how history actually works. There are not big flags that say "this is factual" and "this is propaganda." Someone who does their research in the situation I described above would find a great deal of evidence first, that he had been atheist, and second, that he had converted at some point. There does not even have to be malicious intent for this to occur. In my example Snidely Whiplash twirls his mustaches as he tells everyone that Dawkins converted. In reality this could just as easily occur from a researcher finding fragmentary records in the disused church library and making the talk show rounds with the stunning revelation that Dawkins disavowed atheism on his deathbed.

Once it's written down it's part of the stuff you research. If people are permitted to record this sort of stuff unchallenged then it becomes history. The fact that people are speaking out against this makes it harder for such a confusion to happen, but you seem to think that people shouldn't complain about this. What then would the future scholar research that would tell him that the record of Dawkin's conversion was false?
 
2012-07-03 04:23:11 PM  
Fun how a headline can completely dominate the content of the discussion while the article is almost entirely ignored. "Hey, I've decided we need another circle jerk of bashing XYZ. I'll find an article, ignore its contents, and write a headline that basically orders, 'You will now bash XYZ'." Nice.
 
2012-07-03 04:25:04 PM  

treesloth: Fun how a headline can completely dominate the content of the discussion while the article is almost entirely ignored. "Hey, I've decided we need another circle jerk of bashing XYZ. I'll find an article, ignore its contents, and write a headline that basically orders, 'You will now bash XYZ'." Nice.


yeah but the article is pretty boring
 
2012-07-03 04:26:11 PM  

Voiceofreason01: treesloth: Fun how a headline can completely dominate the content of the discussion while the article is almost entirely ignored. "Hey, I've decided we need another circle jerk of bashing XYZ. I'll find an article, ignore its contents, and write a headline that basically orders, 'You will now bash XYZ'." Nice.

yeah but the article is pretty boring


So is Mitt.
 
2012-07-03 04:27:45 PM  

Theaetetus: If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".


Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?

Nobody has the right to not be offended.
 
2012-07-03 04:30:12 PM  

tarnok: I think you're missing some stuff about how history actually works. There are not big flags that say "this is factual" and "this is propaganda." Someone who does their research in the situation I described above would find a great deal of evidence first, that he had been atheist, and second, that he had converted at some point. There does not even have to be malicious intent for this to occur. In my example Snidely Whiplash twirls his mustaches as he tells everyone that Dawkins converted. In reality this could just as easily occur from a researcher finding fragmentary records in the disused church library and making the talk show rounds with the stunning revelation that Dawkins disavowed atheism on his deathbed.


All of his books in various libraries / homes / museums + millions of videos, youtube and otherwise + newspaper articles / fark threads etc. + various movies VS the Mormon website. I'm not too concerned.
 
2012-07-03 04:33:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?


I think he was told there would be no math...
 
2012-07-03 04:35:57 PM  

Voiceofreason01: yeah but the article is pretty boring


That helps... doesn't distract from the headline!
 
2012-07-03 04:39:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".

Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?

Nobody has the right to not be offended.



Being offended can be both fun AND profitable!

Some folks seem to live for it.
 
2012-07-03 04:41:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".

Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?


This is why it sometimes helps to read the next sentence:
"But when the list simply says "baptized," and dates are only shown when looking at one page of several, then it starts looking suspicious."

So, no, it doesn't.

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

Which is why the Mormons don't have a right to be offended when I say that their actions in this matter show them to be dishonest hypocrites who don't even believe their own espoused doctrine.
 
2012-07-03 04:43:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: But they're dead...Can you enslave dead people?


fc00.deviantart.net

Yes...
 
2012-07-03 04:44:42 PM  
Why is Romney campaigning in Israel?
 
2012-07-03 04:56:08 PM  

Theaetetus: "But when the list simply says "baptized," and dates are only shown when looking at one page of several, then it starts looking suspicious."


Seriously, if that is what you're complaining about, you can be safely ignored. The purpose of the site is genealogy, not satisfying your paranoia. All of the information is there, accessible in about 2 clicks for anyone that wishes to determine if a person was baptized by proxy or not.
 
2012-07-03 05:00:17 PM  

doyner: vernonFL: I would like Romney to explain why Israel's universal healthcare system - which pays for abortions, no less - is so evil, and why we would support a country that has such an evil healthcare system.

Our relationship doesn't work that way. We are beholden to them. Not the other way around.



Yes of course, because of all their petro dollars they control the WORLD!

/amusing how the richest most powerful nation is somehow a slave to a tiny country thousands of miles away with little real power
 
2012-07-03 05:02:25 PM  

Supes: FWIW, the LDS church has very explicitly come out against the above-described baptisms. When it happens, it's rogue members who are initiating it. Can't judge a whole religion by what a couple of bad actors do.



citation needed
 
2012-07-03 05:04:08 PM  

Amos Quito: Romney, an Eye on Campaign, Plans a Trip to Israel

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x278]

You'll need plenty of this, Mitt



I knew when the Jew whistle was blown, you would magically show up again

Fark's most un-favorite anti-Semite
 
2012-07-03 05:08:06 PM  
I'd like to know why Mormon's care about Israel? Shouldn't he be visting Egypt? After all, their religion basically said most of the Bible was wrong, and based most of their beliefs off ancient Egyptian history.

I'd also like to know why idiots still keep parroting the idea that Israel controls American politics. The leader of Oman just bought a 100 million dollar home in New York City. Now tell me who really has money and power in this world? Sounds like a bunch of idiots who can't figure out OPEC has more control that any Jewish PAC could dream of.
 
2012-07-03 05:08:09 PM  

treesloth: Seriously, if that is what you're complaining about, you can be safely ignored.


This message was brought to you by the Church of Latter-Day Saints: the Dicks.
 
2012-07-03 05:19:16 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Why is Romney campaigning in Israel?



For the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks?
 
2012-07-03 05:23:38 PM  

intelligent comment below: I'd like to know why Mormon's care about Israel? Shouldn't he be visting Egypt? After all, their religion basically said most of the Bible was wrong, and based most of their beliefs off ancient Egyptian history.



Says ICB, who knows nothing about Mormonism...


intelligent comment below: I'd also like to know why idiots still keep parroting the idea that Israel controls American politics. The leader of Oman just bought a 100 million dollar home in New York City. Now tell me who really has money and power in this world? Sounds like a bunch of idiots who can't figure out OPEC has more control that any Jewish PAC could dream of.



...or anything else.
 
2012-07-03 05:32:37 PM  
Will Mitt be wearing his magic temple underwear on the trip?
 
2012-07-03 05:35:46 PM  

Amos Quito: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".

Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?

Nobody has the right to not be offended.


Being offended can be both fun AND profitable!

Some folks seem to live for it.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-03 05:37:52 PM  

Theaetetus: This message was brought to you by the Church of Latter-Day Saints: the Dicks.


Does mindlessly lashing out make you feel better than admitting you've got nothing? Apparently so.
 
2012-07-03 05:38:23 PM  
That's right, Mitt. Appeal to the doomsday-cultists who think they can trick God into ending the world ahead of schedule by artificially creating the signs of the apocalypse.
 
2012-07-03 05:39:05 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: If the list was titled "People who were not Mormons but have been baptized posthumously," then I'd agree. Or even if the list had annotations like "Posthumously baptized" or "baptized by proxy".

Doesn't the "Died: 1990" "Baptized: 2008" sort of take care of that part?

This is why it sometimes helps to read the next sentence:
"But when the list simply says "baptized," and dates are only shown when looking at one page of several, then it starts looking suspicious."

So, no, it doesn't.

If someone was genuinely interested in the truth, they could probably tolerate clicking through all of the pages.

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

Which is why the Mormons don't have a right to be offended when I say that their actions in this matter show them to be dishonest hypocrites who don't even believe their own espoused doctrine.

Sounds good to me. I certainly wouldn't argue that the Mormons need any sympathy here. It's an equal opportunity retard-fest. Grown people fighting over who's imaginary friend better suits their dead relatives.

 
2012-07-03 05:40:39 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: This message was brought to you by the Church of Latter-Day Saints: the Dicks.

Does mindlessly lashing out make you feel better than admitting you've got nothing? Apparently so.


You haven't addressed any of my points, but merely said "that's what people are offended about? Well, fark them," so not only have you got nothing, you're actually admitting that all of the criticism is spot on and you just don't care.

Which I guess is something.
 
2012-07-03 05:42:33 PM  

intelligent comment below: Supes: FWIW, the LDS church has very explicitly come out against the above-described baptisms. When it happens, it's rogue members who are initiating it. Can't judge a whole religion by what a couple of bad actors do.


citation needed


It's not that tough...
 
2012-07-03 05:47:30 PM  

Theaetetus: You haven't addressed any of my points


In fact, I did, you just didn't like it. Having to click twice to answer the question of whether the baptism was by proxy or not isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple. Yes, it could be altered. For that matter, it might be at some point, but here's the thing: the purpose of the website is to do genealogy, not to publicize how baptisms were done. So, to find out how a baptism was done, you have to click twice, not once. Yes, if that's too much, then I guess we're just never going to agree. Oh, well.
 
2012-07-03 05:49:09 PM  
Maybe to appeal to the Jewish voters, Mitt could get circumcised in Israel,.
The leftovers could be used to make a suit.
 
2012-07-03 05:49:24 PM  

Theaetetus: You haven't addressed any of my points


Oh, and pointing out that I just don't care what you think is not the same as conceding that you have a point. Past a certain point, if an person's complaints are sufficiently vacuous, I feel no more need to point out their errors than I do to argue with the Time Cube guy.
 
2012-07-03 05:55:30 PM  

Amos Quito: Says ICB, who knows nothing about Mormonism...


http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/Mormonism/BookOfAbraham.htm

The Origin of the Scrolls

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and translator of the Book of Mormon, obtained some ancient Egyptian scrolls in July, 1835. Joseph stated they contained the writings of Abraham, and his divinely inspired translation of them became Mormon scripture.
 
2012-07-03 05:57:16 PM  

intelligent comment below: Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and translator of the Book of Mormon, obtained some ancient Egyptian scrolls in July, 1835. Joseph stated they contained the writings of Abraham, and his divinely inspired translation of them became Mormon scripture.


Awesome! Now you need to show that "most of their beliefs" come from that.
 
2012-07-03 05:59:09 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: You haven't addressed any of my points

In fact, I did, you just didn't like it. Having to click twice to answer the question of whether the baptism was by proxy or not isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple.


Altering the page isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple, and it would obviate all of the complaints.
But that's too much for the Mormons. Which makes one ask what their real motive is.
 
2012-07-03 06:23:49 PM  

treesloth: intelligent comment below: Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and translator of the Book of Mormon, obtained some ancient Egyptian scrolls in July, 1835. Joseph stated they contained the writings of Abraham, and his divinely inspired translation of them became Mormon scripture.

Awesome! Now you need to show that "most of their beliefs" come from that.



No, I totally forgot the passages in the real Bible that mention Kobol! Stupid me

Dumbass Mormon shill
 
2012-07-03 06:25:07 PM  
Or that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Or Magic Underpants. etc etc etc etc etc

Guess I gotta go back to the Torah, silly me
 
2012-07-03 06:35:46 PM  

Theaetetus: treesloth: Theaetetus: You haven't addressed any of my points

In fact, I did, you just didn't like it. Having to click twice to answer the question of whether the baptism was by proxy or not isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple.

Altering the page isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple, and it would obviate all of the complaints.
But that's too much for the Mormons. Which makes one ask what their real motive is.


So the website created / maintained / published etc. by the Mormons should conform to the desires of the Jews, otherwise they are assholes? The primary purpose of the site isn't to placate the Jews. The primary purpose of the site is accessed with one click. The purpose that the Jews are after is accessed with two clicks. It doesn't seem appropriate to you that the people who created / own etc. the site don't modify it so that something that is two clicks away comes up as the primary page, even if that page isn't what they intended to be the primary page?
 
2012-07-03 06:37:33 PM  

Theaetetus: Altering the page isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple, and it would obviate all of the complaints.
But that's too much for the Mormons. Which makes one ask what their real motive is.


By all means, let us know once you discover the insidious designs behind making users click twice instead of once.

intelligent comment below: No, I totally forgot the passages in the real Bible that mention Kobol! Stupid me

Dumbass Mormon shill


It's "Kolob", not "Kobol". And that falls far, far short of the "most of their beliefs" standard that you set for yourself. However, it's now pretty obvious that your intention is personal attacks, not legitimate disagreement, so I think I'll bow out now.
 
2012-07-03 06:55:55 PM  

intelligent comment below: Or that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Or Magic Underpants. etc etc etc etc etc

Guess I gotta go back to the Torah, silly me



As if you ever left, lol!

Talmudy blues?
 
2012-07-03 07:06:41 PM  

treesloth: It's "Kolob", not "Kobol". And that falls far, far short of the "most of their beliefs" standard that you set for yourself. However, it's now pretty obvious that your intention is personal attacks, not legitimate disagreement, so I think I'll bow out now.



Huh? Your savior MADE UP history based on his claimed reading of EGYPTIAN SCROLLS

And yet you still call yourselves "true original Christians" when your views are based more on ancient Egyptian mythology than any Jewish writing or even Jesus'

Personal attacks? Yeah damn my personal attacks reminding you that your religion is an Egyptian religion NOT Christianity and that the founder and all his family members were convicted of fraud multiple times

The truth hurts, it's no wonder none of you can ever take any constructive criticism.
 
2012-07-03 07:07:34 PM  

Amos Quito: intelligent comment below: Or that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Or Magic Underpants. etc etc etc etc etc

Guess I gotta go back to the Torah, silly me


As if you ever left, lol!

Talmudy blues?



Why are you shilling on behalf of Mormon's? Do you view everyone as "better" than the evil Jews who rule the world?
 
2012-07-03 07:23:42 PM  

intelligent comment below: treesloth: It's "Kolob", not "Kobol". And that falls far, far short of the "most of their beliefs" standard that you set for yourself. However, it's now pretty obvious that your intention is personal attacks, not legitimate disagreement, so I think I'll bow out now.


Huh? Your savior MADE UP history based on his claimed reading of EGYPTIAN SCROLLS

And yet you still call yourselves "true original Christians" when your views are based more on ancient Egyptian mythology than any Jewish writing or even Jesus'

Personal attacks? Yeah damn my personal attacks reminding you that your religion is an Egyptian religion NOT Christianity and that the founder and all his family members were convicted of fraud multiple times

The truth hurts, it's no wonder none of you can ever take any constructive criticism.


I asked you one thing: Show that "most of their beliefs" came from the source you claimed, the Egyptian scrolls. Until you do that, everything you say in reply to me is evasion and backpedaling. Now, can you demonstrate your assertion or not?
 
2012-07-03 07:24:05 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Altering the page isn't too much to ask. It's very, very simple, and it would obviate all of the complaints.
But that's too much for the Mormons. Which makes one ask what their real motive is.

By all means, let us know once you discover the insidious designs behind making users click twice instead of once.

intelligent comment below: No, I totally forgot the passages in the real Bible that mention Kobol! Stupid me

Dumbass Mormon shill

It's "Kolob", not "Kobol". And that falls far, far short of the "most of their beliefs" standard that you set for yourself. However, it's now pretty obvious that your intention is personal attacks, not legitimate disagreement, so I think I'll bow out now.


You're fighting really hard to defend people who are trying their best to bring everyone into their fold, willingly or not, and have to resort to converting dead people to do it. Sorry, but Mormoms are a special brand of crazy.
 
2012-07-03 07:26:42 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ... and have to resort to converting dead people to do it.


Mormons (like me) don't even think that's possible. We might be a special kind of crazy, but we appreciate having our craziness properly stated.
 
2012-07-03 07:29:10 PM  

treesloth: Keizer_Ghidorah: ... and have to resort to converting dead people to do it.

Mormons (like me) don't even think that's possible. We might be a special kind of crazy, but we appreciate having our craziness properly stated.


Sorry, quoted wrong. That should have included:

Keizer_Ghidorah: ... bring everyone into their fold, willingly or not...

 
2012-07-03 07:34:11 PM  

intelligent comment below: Amos Quito: intelligent comment below: Or that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Or Magic Underpants. etc etc etc etc etc

Guess I gotta go back to the Torah, silly me


As if you ever left, lol!

Talmudy blues?


Why are you shilling on behalf of Mormon's? Do you view everyone as "better" than the evil Jews who rule the world?



ME shill for one sky-god-klan over another?

Heaven forbid!

But if you want to make fun of their fantasies (while clinging to your own), at least try to learn a bit about said fantasies.

It's KOLOB, not Kobol.

The "funny underwear" was "borrowed" from Masonry (as were many of their weird Temple Rites).

Joseph Smith was either raving mad or a shrewd charlatan (or both), but he was quite successful, wasn't he?

The Book of Mormon is a laughable (and very poorly written) fairy tale that contradicts all early American history, archeology, etc- yet millions of the Faithful continue to swear by it.

Brigham Young was the true Mormon genius: He took over the church in a coup, led the Saints into the desert (where he planned to form his own nation), organized and ruled the church, which he built into an extremely powerful, wealthy and efficient corporate machine that functions with its army of Mobots to this day...

And soon we'll have one as president!

If all this seems crazy, it is.

But then so is the Bible / Torah, and the other kooky faiths they spawned.

No?
 
2012-07-03 07:51:26 PM  

treesloth: I asked you one thing: Show that "most of their beliefs" came from the source you claimed, the Egyptian scrolls. Until you do that, everything you say in reply to me is evasion and backpedaling. Now, can you demonstrate your assertion or not?



The religion is based off the scrolls, he found them, translated them, then magically lost them and that created a religion. Then wrote a whole new Bible.

If that doesn't show the religion believes in the Egyptian scrolls more than Christianity and its own Bible then I am sure you have no problem just using a real Bible in your church, right? Since you are ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS and all.

You can't accept the truth, that's typical of your cult. You don't use the Old Testament that Jesus followed, you know, REAL JEWS/CHRISTIANS, your cult leaders decided to write their own inserting Egyptian mythology and ancient alien garbage based on nothing but a known fraudsters delusional grandiose dreams.

Maybe you just should have left, there is no debating a cult member.

/Just playing semantics and questioning me without any arguments on your side doesn't actually mean you're trying to debate anything. It means you're desperate not to show your derp cards.
 
2012-07-03 07:52:06 PM  
Just read up some more on Mormonism on Wiki. I knew a good bit about it, and had seen the South Park episode...but holy farking FSM, these people are nuts. I'm actually terrified of these goobers on the bikes now. They have to be quite mentally unstable to believe this stuff. They should be in an asylum, not out in public and around children.
 
2012-07-03 08:24:57 PM  

OhLuverly: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times. Posthumous baptism does not in any way shape or form make these people a part of the Mormon church. It is clear to see in the database that the rite was done after death and in no way can be confused with them converting during their life. Posthumous baptism is an invitation to them after their death to accept the gospel if they so chose, as they may not have been given the opportunity to do so in life. That's it. Take off your tin foil hats.


That may be true--that it doesn't make them Mormons--but it's still an affront to their survivors who know they had the "opportunity" as you say and didn't take it because they DIDN'T BELIEVE IT. Many Jews believe that baptism is a denial of the religion of their fathers, which is why Jews in the Holocaust refused to convert even if it would have saved their lives--because that was their belief.

You can't just go around saying "We'll give you one more chance not to be a Jew/Muslim/atheist (you poor deluded soul)" and expect the genuine believers of that faith not to be really really pissed at you.
 
2012-07-03 08:37:11 PM  

intelligent comment below: treesloth: I asked you one thing: Show that "most of their beliefs" came from the source you claimed, the Egyptian scrolls. Until you do that, everything you say in reply to me is evasion and backpedaling. Now, can you demonstrate your assertion or not?


The religion is based off the scrolls, he found them, translated them, then magically lost them and that created a religion. Then wrote a whole new Bible.



1. They weren't "scrolls", they were PLATES - Golden Plates, to be precise

www.utlm.org

2. He didn't "find" them. They were SHOWN to him by an angel / giant white salamander (depends on version)
3. He translated them with the help of "peep stones" - the "Urim and Thummim"
4. He didn't "lose them", they were taken away to confuse non-believers like you
5. The Book of Mormon is not a "new Bible" (though Smith did create an "inspired translation" of the Old and New Testaments).


intelligent comment below: If that doesn't show the religion believes in the Egyptian scrolls more than Christianity and its own Bible then I am sure you have no problem just using a real Bible in your church, right? Since you are ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS and all.



6. Golden Plates were NEVER claimed to have been written in Egyptian
7. Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible ALL THE TIME. They just spice it up with the BOM, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham (LOL!) and "revelations" given to them via their Latter Day prophets.


intelligent comment below: You can't accept the truth, that's typical of your cult.



True - as it is of YOUR (older but just as silly) cult, I might add...


intelligent comment below: You don't use the Old Testament that Jesus followed, you know



Yes they do.


intelligent comment below: you know, REAL JEWS/CHRISTIANS, your cult leaders decided to write their own inserting Egyptian mythology and ancient alien garbage based on nothing but a known fraudsters delusional grandiose dreams.



Dude, the fact that your myths have more miles on them doesn't make them any less nutty than theirs.


intelligent comment below: Maybe you just should have left, there is no debating a cult member.



New cult, old cult - crazy religion is crazy - all are farking cancers and liabilities on humanity. They were invented to control and pit one group against another, and have caused more pain, suffering and death than any disease I can think of.

Maybe it's time we just dropped this superstitious bullshiat and moved on as human beings.

No?
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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