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 Onion)   Gay teen worried he might be Christian   (theonion.com) divider line 93
    More: Amusing, evangelical christianity, Oral Roberts University, Left Behind series, radical right  
•       •       •

9638 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2013 at 1:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-27 10:29:40 AM  
At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

lawl
 
2013-02-27 10:50:43 AM  
I chuckled.
 
2013-02-27 10:56:20 AM  
Future GOP candidate?

By the time he's 25, he should have his wide stance down pat.
 
2013-02-27 11:17:35 AM  
I wonder what  thatreparative therapy would look like?
 
2013-02-27 11:24:47 AM  
Ok that was pretty funny.
 
2013-02-27 12:40:16 PM  

kid_icarus: I wonder what  thatreparative therapy would look like?


A library card, a Reddit account, and a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.
 
2013-02-27 10:39:36 PM  
Sick. This kid needs major therapy to cure his mental disorder. Christianity is a CHOICE!
 
2013-02-27 11:54:00 PM  

exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.


Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.
 
2013-02-28 12:03:34 AM  
"absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods."

Wtf?

You went full retard, you never go full retard.
 
2013-02-28 12:36:54 AM  
Why, I bet Richard Dawkins doesn't even have any training in homeopathy, either!
 
2013-02-28 01:24:26 AM  
Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that
 
2013-02-28 02:01:54 AM  

Paris1127: Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that


I saw the headline and thought it was a play on the very popular Onion article from a few years ago, then saw that it was the very popular Onion article from a few years ago.
 
2013-02-28 02:02:23 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is...


4/10
Onion hits it home again, albeit this is a few years old.
 
2013-02-28 02:03:22 AM  
Is it just me or is this kid kind of a coont?
 
2013-02-28 02:03:30 AM  
You know I saw a good movie/documentary on this the other day. Fish out of Water-trailer
 
2013-02-28 02:03:39 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


I know, right?  He has no idea what thread count the Emperor's new clothes are!
 
2013-02-28 02:04:36 AM  
(Although, now that the web is getting a few years under its belt, maybe Fark needs a [CLASSIC] tag.)
 
2013-02-28 02:06:57 AM  
Okay should have read TFA first knowing the Onion but the earlier post still works.
 
2013-02-28 02:10:24 AM  

Somacandra: Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.


Exactly - just like people with PhDs in Falloutology are the only ones qualified to comment on whether or not the Vault Dweller exists.
 
2013-02-28 02:12:53 AM  
Gay is real. JC, maybe not.
 
2013-02-28 02:12:55 AM  
I just want my normal gay son back!!

lulz
 
2013-02-28 02:13:51 AM  
Oldie but a goodie.

And this one's about a month old, but it was the last one that had me laughing hysterically.

The Onion Freely and Happily Give It's Employees' Passwords to China
 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-freely-and-happily-gives- it s-employees-p,31102/
 
2013-02-28 02:18:41 AM  
This link is ancient history, but it's definitely in the Onion All-time Greatest, so I can't complain.

/quick, someone submit Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock
 
2013-02-28 02:26:46 AM  

Mithiwithi: Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

I know, right?  He has no idea what thread count the Emperor's new clothes are!


<3 Love this point.

I do respect Somacandra for at least admitting that Hitchens, Dawkins, and maybe even Maher  would pass such a course. High praise.

The idea that religion Hitchens did not engage with religion as phenomena is just incorrect. Most of his arguments were not about the disproof of god, but instead he turned an eye of criticism towards that phenomena you say he never addressed. The same could be said of most anti religious advocates, at the end of the day we don't really care about god, because god is, from our perspective, a non issue. It is that lived phenomena of religion that is problematic, and the point.

I don't mind you disagreeing with the arguments, but please don't misrepresent them.

On a lighter note does anyone else love when Christians use "that argument is so old 100 years come on get with the times man" as a criticism?
 
2013-02-28 02:29:10 AM  
Coming out to your parents as soon as you know is one of the coolest things you can ever do for your life and for theirs.
 
2013-02-28 02:32:14 AM  
thread needs more Christian persecution.

www.oilpaintinghk.com

lindagailwestrich.ipage.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

Ah. Now it feels like home again. My black, satanic heart is warmed once more.
 
2013-02-28 02:38:57 AM  

nerftaig: On a lighter note does anyone else love when Christians use "that argument is so old 100 years come on get with the times man" as a criticism?


A couple months ago, a 9/11 Truther chided me for using "decade-old" arguments in rebutting his claims. Some people just don't consider the possibility that the reason they're hearing the same rebuttals over and over again is that their own position hasn't gotten any cleverer, as opposed to there being some inadequacy on the part of the people they're arguing with.
 
2013-02-28 02:43:40 AM  
In partial deference to Somacandra, Dawkins is generally not content to argue that religion is untrue - he insists on arguing that it's harmful as well. And arguing that in the general case, rather than the specific Abrahamic religions with which he has direct experience, requires not so much theology as a broad (and fairly deep) grounding in the anthropology and history of religion - and that background Dawkins does indeed lack.

Dawkins does pretty well when arguing that religions are either untrue or "not even wrong" (in the sense of making "claims" that can't possibly be tested). He's on much weaker ground when he tries to argue that all religions, solely by being religions, are harmful to the societies that retain them.
 
2013-02-28 02:45:41 AM  

Paris1127: Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that


This is at least the second time I've seen this here.
 
2013-02-28 02:58:37 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


*Shrug*  Maybe.
But I don't really see that, or the article you linked,  as being particularly relevant.
Dawkins does not, in general, even try to engage religion as a sociological construct, and for the purposes of what he is trying to do that is perfectly fine.  He isn't being indiscriminately anti-religious based on his own definition of what a religion is, he is engaging very specific facets of their belief systems.  Specifically, if a religion makes a supernatural claim about the way that the universe actually works, those are the things he is arguing with.  If he is addressing only specific types of claims, it doesn't matter how much he does or doesn't know about the cultural construct that is making them.  That is a central pillar of science -- the hypothesis is separate from the person (or organization) making the claim.

To test and debate the concept of God or gods and the claims made about them does not require that he know anything about the history of religion or even the abstract philosophical underpinnings, he only has to know what the logical consequences of those beliefs are and how they relate to the real world that we see around us.  To claim that he doesn't have any business talking about religion just because he doesn't have training in the Religious philosophical hand-waving is just elitist academic masturbation.
 
2013-02-28 03:02:32 AM  

Gawdzila: To claim that he doesn't have any business talking about religion just because he doesn't have training in the Religious philosophical hand-waving is just elitist academic masturbation.


I agree, except in the sense that you are implying masturbation is bad.
 
2013-02-28 03:03:35 AM  

blah blah blah. Look- believe what you want to believe- just dont hurt others in the course of that or force others to think your way. And, most importantly



Its allright to live like a refugee
 
2013-02-28 03:11:25 AM  
yummy, this thread has it all. gay adolation, Christian bashing, Richard Dawkins, old news is fun!, Penn & Teller, truly polite posters thnking Bill Maher could muster a 'C' grade in a basic freshman university course, 9/11 Truthers - you name it, this one has it all. next will be DooshBag promoting The Theory of Evolution As Fact. i love it.

/ The Onion - is there anything a quality site can't do?
// i would get FARK tattooed right on my big fat stinky hairy man ass, but then i'd have to show it to you.
 
2013-02-28 03:22:17 AM  
KrispyKritter:
// i would get FARK tattooed right on my big fat stinky hairy man ass, but then i'd have to show it to you.

That sounds like a Bort challenge gone way too far. Prolly before your time, but still. I'll give 20 bucks to
doctors without borders if you do it and prove it .
 
2013-02-28 03:23:12 AM  
That was fabulous
 
2013-02-28 03:36:22 AM  
Hey, Focus on the Family -- you guys need to pay attention to this one! This is a real news article! Written about a real person with real anxieties. You need to issue a press release, and offer support to the young man in his time of crisis! I'm serious! This is NO JOKE!!!!
 
2013-02-28 03:42:15 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Hey, Focus on the Family -- you guys need to pay attention to this one! This is a real news article! Written about a real person with real anxieties. You need to issue a press release, and offer support to the young man in his time of crisis! I'm serious! This is NO JOKE!!!!


That would be an interesting troll, send it to them as a concerned parent and christen.
lulz
 
2013-02-28 03:45:38 AM  
i cant wait to see how this plays out on Literally Unbelievable.
 
2013-02-28 03:49:44 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


A competently taught freshman religious studies course generally provides enough information to tear apart the diseased aspects of religion - that is, the idea of a perfect divine revealed truth.
 
2013-02-28 04:21:35 AM  

kid_icarus: I wonder what  thatreparative therapy would look like?


Gay away the Pray?
 
2013-02-28 04:52:51 AM  
Gay Buddha embraces the all.

farm4.static.flickr.com

(The all is your penis.)
 
2013-02-28 05:00:59 AM  
If my son came out an told me he was a right-wing fundamentalist christian, I would disown him.
It's filthy, unhealthy, and un-American!!
 
2013-02-28 05:02:15 AM  

ModernLuddite: (The all is your penis.)


plus eleventy. well played
 
2013-02-28 05:21:11 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


This is like saying you don't understand super heroes unless you have fully invested yourself into the canon of them all. I think they get it. And every one of them has discussed the phenomena of religion and described it as what fills the vacuum understanding when science is not present, and being a convenient fantasy to believe in because it's what people want to believe.
 
2013-02-28 07:31:35 AM  

alienated: KrispyKritter:
// i would get FARK tattooed right on my big fat stinky hairy man ass, but then i'd have to show it to you.

That sounds like a Bort challenge gone way too far. Prolly before your time, but still. I'll give 20 bucks to
doctors without borders if you do it and prove it .


Put me down for twenty.

VH
 
2013-02-28 07:32:38 AM  
and here i am, a Christian, wondering if i'm gay
 
2013-02-28 07:37:04 AM  

The Flexecutioner: i cant wait to see how this plays out on Literally Unbelievable.


Came to say this.
 
2013-02-28 07:43:33 AM  

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


Right, Maher has a degree in history from Cornell, but a C is all he'd be able to muster at the all-world academic powerhouse that is TCU (where Plate is tenured).
 
2013-02-28 07:46:50 AM  

Somacandra: But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.


Oh please, "religious studies theory or methods", theories need evidence and testability neither of which apply to relicion which seems to consist of "read an old book, assume it is true and pull some ideas out of your butt". As far as I can see that's all it takes to be a religious "expert".
 
2013-02-28 08:03:56 AM  

James F. Campbell: Why, I bet Richard Dawkins doesn't even have any training in homeopathy, either!


All I know is he was great on Hogan's Heroes!
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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