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.

(CNN)   The new pope, a humble man of the people, just received a new $565,000 magic car   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, bulletproof glass, John Paul II, state visit, Pope Paul VI, Mercedes-Benz, pope  
•       •       •

11747 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 11:12 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 04:15:03 PM  

Nabb1: Jim_Callahan: Nabb1: There are indeed many intellectually legitimate, sound, logical, philosophical and theological arguments to be made against the existence of the Divine.  The fact that the Pope has a bullet-proof car is not one of them.

To be fair, the car is an admission that god is not all-powerful, so it actually does undermine Christian theology pretty thoroughly.

I don't recall it every being part of Christian theology that there were any guarantees one would assuredly avoid an untimely death through a belief in God.  Even for Popes.  But, if that's working for you, stick with it.


Well, much like my rock that prevents tiger attacks, I have not yet died an untimely death.  I credit my belief in God.

/sounded funnier in my head.
 
2013-03-14 04:17:23 PM  

Nytfall: Well, much like my rock that prevents tiger attacks, I have not yet died an untimely death. I credit my belief in God.

/sounded funnier in my head.


Maybe in your head you told the joke correctly.
 
2013-03-14 04:35:26 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: vpb: I think he needs something more compact and portable.

[www.tonecartoons.co.uk image 850x675]

PONTIFICATE! PONTIFICATE!

Congrats!  You win the Internet.

 
2013-03-14 04:44:25 PM  
People need to chill with the Jesuit thing. They're quickly turning into catholic ninjas who invented the question mark. They're marginally less derpy than the rest of the papists, that's it.
 
2013-03-14 04:49:34 PM  

Champion of the Sun: People need to chill with the Jesuit thing. They're quickly turning into catholic ninjas who invented the question mark. They're marginally less derpy than the rest of the papists, that's it.


pendletonpanther.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-14 04:54:46 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Carousel Beast: Jim_Callahan: To be fair, the car is an admission that god is not all-powerful, so it actually does undermine Christian theology pretty thoroughly.

The mere fact that any being is omnipotent doesn't mean said entity will intervene in whatever way is necessary for your religion-bashing argument to hold water.

We've already been over this (centuries ago):

[rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]

Ask yourself this, if god helps those that help themselves, how can one distinguish between our efforts and god's help? How does one make that distinction? Where does our effort end and god's help begin?

From an outside perspective that statement really seems to be saying if you want something done, do it yourself. But if you do it yourself, where was god's help? Was god's help actually needed?

So often we see god(s) take credit for man's accomplishments, but to be intellectually honest you must face the question that if we did it, at what point was any god helping? One must ask oneself, honestly, has there ever been any accomplishment of man that has been completely impossible without the help of any supernatural agent?

If your answer is yes, then what form did that agent's help take? What evidence of it's help do you have? At what point did human effort end and supernatural help begin? How do you distinguish that occurrence from something that was accomplished through nothing more than human effort?

A challenge: name one thing demonstrably accomplished by mankind that is or was impossible for mankind to accomplish without the help of any supernatural influence, and what empirical evidence do you have that said influence affected the outcome of the task.

Is it a touchdown in football? Is it the invention of penicillin? Is it the discovery of electricity? The invention of the phone? Splitting of the atom? The combustion engine?


Malevolent? Spoken like someone who has never raised kids. At some point you need to let your children make mistakes. You can not control EVERY aspect of their life. The can be omnipotence and still  bad things can happen, even if it is not what you want to happen. Anyone who has raised a daughter knows that the a way to prevent them from getting pregnant is by locking them up in their room forever. You have the power to prevent it. Are you a good parent, using your "omnipotence" to lock them up, so as to prevent them from getting pregant? Or do you let them go out? And if they get pregant are you malevolent?
 
2013-03-14 04:54:50 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Ask yourself this, if god helps those that help themselves, how can one distinguish between our efforts and god's help? How does one make that distinction? Where does our effort end and god's help begin?

Faith means not needing to ask your questions.


Indeed, and that is a perilous road.
 
2013-03-14 04:56:37 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Indeed, and that is a perilous road.


How so?
 
2013-03-14 04:59:03 PM  

Champion of the Sun: People need to chill with the Jesuit thing. They're quickly turning into catholic ninjas who invented the question mark. They're marginally less derpy than the rest of the papists, that's it.


As an x Catholic, I can say it's a big deal to many people because ANY progress towards a less derpy church is monumental, no matter how small a step it seems.
 
2013-03-14 05:07:54 PM  

badaboom: Agent Smiths Laugh: Carousel Beast: Jim_Callahan: To be fair, the car is an admission that god is not all-powerful, so it actually does undermine Christian theology pretty thoroughly.

The mere fact that any being is omnipotent doesn't mean said entity will intervene in whatever way is necessary for your religion-bashing argument to hold water.

We've already been over this (centuries ago):

[rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]

Ask yourself this, if god helps those that help themselves, how can one distinguish between our efforts and god's help? How does one make that distinction? Where does our effort end and god's help begin?

From an outside perspective that statement really seems to be saying if you want something done, do it yourself. But if you do it yourself, where was god's help? Was god's help actually needed?

So often we see god(s) take credit for man's accomplishments, but to be intellectually honest you must face the question that if we did it, at what point was any god helping? One must ask oneself, honestly, has there ever been any accomplishment of man that has been completely impossible without the help of any supernatural agent?

If your answer is yes, then what form did that agent's help take? What evidence of it's help do you have? At what point did human effort end and supernatural help begin? How do you distinguish that occurrence from something that was accomplished through nothing more than human effort?

A challenge: name one thing demonstrably accomplished by mankind that is or was impossible for mankind to accomplish without the help of any supernatural influence, and what empirical evidence do you have that said influence affected the outcome of the task.

Is it a touchdown in football? Is it the invention of penicillin? Is it the discovery of electricity? The invention of the phone? Splitting of the atom? The combustion engine?

Malevolent? Spoken like someone who has never raised kids. At some point you need to let your children make mistake ...


Omnipotence without omniscience would function as you describe. However, the christian god is considered omniscient as well. Aware of all things and all possible things. Thus god (as the parent) would know exactly when and how the daughter was going to get pregnant, and being omnipotent certainly would have the power to prevent it, and furthermore if said pregnancy were harmful and undesirable, would have the impetus to prevent it. But if said being then chooses not to prevent it, knowing it is a harmful and undesirable thing, and that said being chose not to stop it, then yes, that is a malevolent act, or at the very least extremely negligent.

And that's not to mention, if said god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did that god choose not to create a system in which such negative events did not happen? After all it's omnipotent, so clearly it has the power to create a perfect, harmless system. It's omniscient, so clearly it knows how to. So why choose not to?

Your analogy breaks down. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Thus you are only able to act on probabilities, not certainties. This does not put you on an equal level with any god being who is capable of unlimited action with unlimited awareness.
 
2013-03-14 05:12:36 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Agent Smiths Laugh: Indeed, and that is a perilous road.

How so?


Because not asking questions is willfully acting in ignorance, and willfully acting in ignorance is dangerous.
 
2013-03-14 05:25:29 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-14 05:26:44 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Because not asking questions is willfully acting in ignorance, and willfully acting in ignorance is dangerous.


Interesting.  So, a person who doesn't care to question whether or not they did something themselves or with the assistance of God is dangerous?

I get what you're saying, but hyperbolic rants against faith are no more constructive than are the hyperbolic rants in favor of faith.  You're no less dangerous than, say, a red letter Christian who doesn't feel the need to answer such questions.  In fact, I'd say you're probably more so, because you're a bit more hateful and arrogant than they are.

Note:  a red letter Christian is one who emphasizes the teachings of Jesus, and isn't all caught up in the "religion" side of things.  Religion and faith--two different things.  I can see why you would have problems with religion.  That makes sense to me.  But problems with faith?  Why would you have a problem with someone's faith?  That seems silly.
 
2013-03-14 05:42:20 PM  

gilgigamesh: Jim_Callahan: Nabb1: There are indeed many intellectually legitimate, sound, logical, philosophical and theological arguments to be made against the existence of the Divine.  The fact that the Pope has a bullet-proof car is not one of them.

To be fair, the car is an admission that god is not all-powerful, so it actually does undermine Christian theology pretty thoroughly.

No it doesn't. It is a pretty well accepted tenet of Christianity that god created mankind with free will. Remember Adam and Eve? God cast them out of paradise because they chose to disobey him. Likewise, you can choose to reject Christ and go to hell.

I realize there are a lot of logical incongruities between free will of man and omnipotence of god. But there is no question that mankind having free will -- being able to choose whether or not to sin, or in this case whether or not to kill -- is a pillar of Christian thought.


I don't think Adam and Eve is a good story for your side of the argument. Satan was the one that directed them to intelligence and knowledge. We owe that dude a lot.

If I was God and I needed a mouthpiece down on the planet I'd protect them at least a little bit.
He doesn't have to be immortal, but at least give him some force fields or telekinetic powers.
Since popes have to be old, they could use their telekinesis to move around with the power of their mind alone.
 
2013-03-14 05:53:50 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: If I was God and I needed a mouthpiece down on the planet I'd protect them at least a little bit.
He doesn't have to be immortal, but at least give him some force fields or telekinetic powers.


Your main fallacy here is assuming that Catholicism has anything to do with faith.  Catholicism is simply the remnant of an early government, the traditions of which are worshiped as thoroughly as protestants worship God.

However, for such an enlightened person, it seems odd that you can't grasp the fact that the New Covenant is vastly different from the Old.  According to Christianity, God sent Jesus, and from then on out does not directly intervene in the world, except through Christians.  In other words, he won't cause plagues, and he won't burn bushes, but Christians carry out his will, to the extent that they are able (or certainly willing).

You also make the mistake, as many do, in believing that that religious people should be perfect people, and fault Christianity for the actions of Christians.

No religion can withstand the scrutiny of being judged by the people who practice it.  We're all pretty farked up.
 
2013-03-14 06:20:08 PM  
Agent Smiths Laugh:
Omnipotence without omniscience would function as you describe. However, the christian god is considered omniscient as well. Aware of all things and all possible things. Thus god (as the parent) would know exactly when and how the daughter was going to get pregnant, and being omnipotent certainly would have the power to prevent it, and furthermore if said pregnancy were harmful and undesirable, would have the impetus to prevent it. But if said being then chooses not to prevent it, knowing it is a harmful and undesirable thing, and that said being chose not to stop it, then yes, that is a malevolent act, or at the very least extremely negligent.
And that's not to mention, if said god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did that god choose not to create a system in which such negative events did not happen? After all it's omnipotent, so clearly it has the power to create a perfect, harmless system. It's omniscient, so clearly it knows how to. So why choose not to?
Your analogy breaks down. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Thus you are only able to act on probabilities, not certainties. This does not put you on an equal level with any god being who is capable of unlimited action with unlimited awareness.


I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe god has a hand in it, but your argument is ridiculous. first, a malevolent god would be one that actively causes evil, not stand back and watch. What is described is apathy at worst.

If God has given us free will he can't just stop people from using it, otherwise it wouldn't be free will now, would it?

If there were never negative consequences for any action according to your current baseline of what is good or evil, what would be seen as evil and how would that affect your interaction with the world?

If there is no adversity how can you measure perseverance?

If there is no evil how can you see honour in those that chose to be righteous?

If god protected everyone all the time from everything, life would have no point. Life is supposed to be a sort of entrance exam to the next world.

You're saying that if God really loved us, he'd become the ultimate nanny state wrapping everyone in bubble wrap, but because he hasn't smothered us and prevented us from having free will, he's evil or doesn't exist. That is a ridiculous position.
 
2013-03-14 06:27:14 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: If I was God and I needed a mouthpiece down on the planet I'd protect them at least a little bit.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mar%C3%ADa_Fern%C3%A1ndez_y_Krohn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

I dunno, you might be forgiven for thinking he might be a little bit.
 
2013-03-14 07:15:27 PM  
arethereanybeernamesleft:

Your main fallacy here is assuming that Catholicism has anything to do with faith.  Catholicism is simply the remnant of an early government, the traditions of which are worshiped as thoroughly as protestants worship God.

Huh? I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I thought it was clear that I don't personally believe he's a messenger of god with divine powers.
===================================================================== = ==============
However, for such an enlightened person, it seems odd that you can't grasp the fact that the New Covenant is vastly different from the Old.  According to Christianity, God sent Jesus, and from then on out does not directly intervene in the world, except through Christians.  In other words, he won't cause plagues, and he won't burn bushes, but Christians carry out his will, to the extent that they are able (or certainly willing).

???
What part of my post brought this response about? Dude, I was talking about force fields.
I'm perfectly aware of the Old and New Testaments but that's another discussion.
===================================================================== = ================

You also make the mistake, as many do, in believing that that religious people should be perfect people, and fault Christianity for the actions of Christians.

...Telekinesis?
===================================================================== = ================
No religion can withstand the scrutiny of being judged by the people who practice it.  We're all pretty farked up.

All the more reason the Pope should have force fields.

hight3ch.com
/hotlinked
 
2013-03-14 07:21:55 PM  
C_Canuk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mar%C3%ADa_Fern%C3%A1ndez_y_Krohn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

I dunno, you might be forgiven for thinking he might be a little bit.


That's a good hand, but you've left yourself open:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-14 07:32:38 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: C_Canuk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mar%C3%ADa_Fern%C3%A1ndez_y_Krohn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

I dunno, you might be forgiven for thinking he might be a little bit.

That's a good hand, but you've left yourself open:

[i.imgur.com image 342x324]


only one explanation.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-14 07:33:25 PM  

C_Canuk: Agent Smiths Laugh:
Omnipotence without omniscience would function as you describe. However, the christian god is considered omniscient as well. Aware of all things and all possible things. Thus god (as the parent) would know exactly when and how the daughter was going to get pregnant, and being omnipotent certainly would have the power to prevent it, and furthermore if said pregnancy were harmful and undesirable, would have the impetus to prevent it. But if said being then chooses not to prevent it, knowing it is a harmful and undesirable thing, and that said being chose not to stop it, then yes, that is a malevolent act, or at the very least extremely negligent.
And that's not to mention, if said god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did that god choose not to create a system in which such negative events did not happen? After all it's omnipotent, so clearly it has the power to create a perfect, harmless system. It's omniscient, so clearly it knows how to. So why choose not to?
Your analogy breaks down. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Thus you are only able to act on probabilities, not certainties. This does not put you on an equal level with any god being who is capable of unlimited action with unlimited awareness.

I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe god has a hand in it, but your argument is ridiculous. first, a malevolent god would be one that actively causes evil, not stand back and watch. What is described is apathy at worst.

If God has given us free will he can't just stop people from using it, otherwise it wouldn't be free will now, would it?

If there were never negative consequences for any action according to your current baseline of what is good or evil, what would be seen as evil and how would that affect your interaction with the world?

If there is no adversity how can you measure perseverance?

If there is no evil how can you see honour in those that chose to be righteous?

If god protected everyone all the time from everything, life w ...


So a god that is attributed with creating a being, giving that being free will, and then punishing that being (with eternal torment) for exercising that free will when it doesn't align with that gods wishes is not malevolent at all?

To me, that sounds like the ultimate expression of sadism.

But wait, everything that transpires is god's will, and you if suffer horribly, it's god's will that you suffer, but since it's god and god is perfect good, it can't possibly be malevolent to let you suffer, even though god could do something if he wanted to.

That's usually the response I see to the question of evil and suffering.

Yes, I view having complete, unlimited power to prevent suffering, but choosing not to a malevolent act, because you are actively choosing to not prevent suffering, thus you are choosing to perpetuate suffering.

Meriam-Webster definition of malevolent:

1: having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, 2: productive of harm or evil

Entrance exam to the next world? What next world? Do you have any evidence of this next world? Have you seen it, smelled it, maybe brought back a rock from it? Can you point it out on a map? And the test? Who wrote it? According the the christian view, their god wrote it, but it's rigged because all of us inevitably fail it, which he knew we would, but he'll excuse our failure as long as we acknowledge that we aren't capable of passing the test without his help. But if you don't, the penalty is that your next world is one of endless torment (which also can, it seems, be found on any map).
 
2013-03-14 07:40:18 PM  

C_Canuk: Agent Smiths Laugh:
Omnipotence without omniscience would function as you describe. However, the christian god is considered omniscient as well. Aware of all things and all possible things. Thus god (as the parent) would know exactly when and how the daughter was going to get pregnant, and being omnipotent certainly would have the power to prevent it, and furthermore if said pregnancy were harmful and undesirable, would have the impetus to prevent it. But if said being then chooses not to prevent it, knowing it is a harmful and undesirable thing, and that said being chose not to stop it, then yes, that is a malevolent act, or at the very least extremely negligent.
And that's not to mention, if said god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did that god choose not to create a system in which such negative events did not happen? After all it's omnipotent, so clearly it has the power to create a perfect, harmless system. It's omniscient, so clearly it knows how to. So why choose not to?
Your analogy breaks down. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Thus you are only able to act on probabilities, not certainties. This does not put you on an equal level with any god being who is capable of unlimited action with unlimited awareness.

I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe god has a hand in it, but your argument is ridiculous. first, a malevolent god would be one that actively causes evil, not stand back and watch. What is described is apathy at worst.


Also, according to christian theology, god is the author of everything, including evil, so yes, their god actively causes evil by its very creation, and exacerbates it by choosing (because it's all god's will they say) not to do anything about it, or only to sometimes do something about it...when he wants to.

One can even (relatively easily) find scripture in their bible ascribing to god the active intention to cause evil upon people. So how exactly does their god get off the hook?

The usual response is, "Because he's god!"
 
2013-03-14 07:43:00 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: C_Canuk: Agent Smiths Laugh:
Omnipotence without omniscience would function as you describe. However, the christian god is considered omniscient as well. Aware of all things and all possible things. Thus god (as the parent) would know exactly when and how the daughter was going to get pregnant, and being omnipotent certainly would have the power to prevent it, and furthermore if said pregnancy were harmful and undesirable, would have the impetus to prevent it. But if said being then chooses not to prevent it, knowing it is a harmful and undesirable thing, and that said being chose not to stop it, then yes, that is a malevolent act, or at the very least extremely negligent.
And that's not to mention, if said god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did that god choose not to create a system in which such negative events did not happen? After all it's omnipotent, so clearly it has the power to create a perfect, harmless system. It's omniscient, so clearly it knows how to. So why choose not to?
Your analogy breaks down. You are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient. Thus you are only able to act on probabilities, not certainties. This does not put you on an equal level with any god being who is capable of unlimited action with unlimited awareness.

I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe god has a hand in it, but your argument is ridiculous. first, a malevolent god would be one that actively causes evil, not stand back and watch. What is described is apathy at worst.

Etc. etc.


...don't, the penalty is that your next world is one of endless torment (which also can't, it seems, be found on any map).

Etc.
 
2013-03-14 08:01:23 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Agent Smiths Laugh: Because not asking questions is willfully acting in ignorance, and willfully acting in ignorance is dangerous.

Interesting.  So, a person who doesn't care to question whether or not they did something themselves or with the assistance of God is dangerous?

I get what you're saying, but hyperbolic rants against faith are no more constructive than are the hyperbolic rants in favor of faith.  You're no less dangerous than, say, a red letter Christian who doesn't feel the need to answer such questions.  In fact, I'd say you're probably more so, because you're a bit more hateful and arrogant than they are.

Note:  a red letter Christian is one who emphasizes the teachings of Jesus, and isn't all caught up in the "religion" side of things.  Religion and faith--two different things.  I can see why you would have problems with religion.  That makes sense to me.  But problems with faith?  Why would you have a problem with someone's faith?  That seems silly.


Negative. The person who doesn't care where their accomplishments come from and doesn't ask is apathetic, or perhaps insane. Simple observation indicates either you do something and it is done, or someone else does something and it is done.

I doubt I need to explain to you what a willful act of ignorance is, or how it can be dangerous, or for that matter how faith can do the same, but if you do need an example, consider Jehovah's Witnessess and blood transfusions.

But I was speaking of whether or not you attribute your deeds to yourself or someone else, and whether or not it is rational to attribute your deeds to someone else when the only empirical evidence available indicates that you were the only one acting (you in the general plural sense).

But who said I was hateful? Am I hateful and arrogant for asking questions, for pointing out that it can be dangerous to not ask questions? For pointing out that irrational behavior is irrational?

Understand, I came from a deeply christian background, and only found my way out of christian dogmatic thinking when I started actually asking questions and looking for rational answers. That same background that encouraged me to NOT ask questions and leave it all up to god. That same background that said god knows it all, and nothing we learn is meaningful compared to god's limitless wisdom, knowledge, and power, so why not leave it all up to god?

I sometimes wonder how many potentially brilliant minds that could have effected real progress for our species have been held back by that intellectually lazy mindset.
 
2013-03-15 12:13:07 PM  
I don't know why the pope needs a special car.  He's got other means of transportation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xqSxKhSSAWc #t =328s
 
Displayed 25 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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