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.

(Chron)   Weeping cardboard Christ draws Texas pilgrims   ( divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

9817 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 May 2004 at 9:00 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

126 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-05-11 09:58:28 PM  

That's the Dale Earnhart goat. Notice the "3" on the side.

Was it the goat guy who saw the 3 and said "We're RICH!!", or was that the owner of the Dale Earnhart cat?

And is Earnhart's soul now split between the goat and the cat?
2004-05-11 10:02:01 PM  
Funny how when this happens in India, it is not "stupid", but it is "culture".
2004-05-11 10:02:12 PM  
I can't help thinking tha there's a guy somewhere in Gaza with a half-empty bottle of bleach and a guilty conscience.
2004-05-11 10:08:31 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2004-05-11 10:10:48 PM  
mods, remove that pic, if you please. it was a fleeting moment and now i'm in post-regret.

although it is kinda funny
2004-05-11 10:12:20 PM  
I can never figure out how these folks know that the image is of Jesus or Mary? Maybe they are worshipping an image of Satan.
2004-05-11 10:21:32 PM  
Yeh, I was going to comment about the 34 yr old grandmother and the 30 yr old needing a walker, but it appears someone already did

What is up with that?
2004-05-11 10:23:57 PM  
If you are ever bitten by a cardboard snake, simply look upon the cardboard Jesus and you will live.

Tell me, does cardboard Jesus evade national cesus records like the real one and have questionable historical records?

/big fan of the real Hercules. I mean, he was written about long ago and believed by so many to have lived so it must be true
2004-05-11 10:25:44 PM  
In the same vein as the goat, there was a human baby born a few months back that had a birthmark which was supposed to spell the name of his dead uncle. The uncle died as a terrorist or freedom fighter in the middle east. The fundy muslims went nuts over it.

/THinks fundies of any persuasion are nuts
2004-05-11 10:26:35 PM  
There should really be a more diverse selection of religious articles on regular Fark so whiny people stop complaining about unfair targeting. But I guess you'll have that when you are part of the largest religion in the world, certinally in English-speaking countries
2004-05-11 10:35:48 PM  
MrNeutron, that has got to be the absolute FUNNIEST THING I'VE SEEN IN FOREVER.... I was eating Rice Krispies when I saw that... and was in the middle of a spoonful when I saw that... I was laughing SO long I couldn't breathe, thank god that one Rice Krispie went down the wrong pipe, and I started choking... cuz I might have died from laughing....

/that photo is now my desktop
2004-05-11 10:40:44 PM  
ummm, where is the proof that the bible is 98% false? and who here is stupid enough to believe Jesus did not actually exist? if you ever studied Roman history or middle eastern history, you'll know for certain that Jesus was in fact a living person and that a lot of historical information from the new testament can be verified. why dont people ever spend a few minutes to either think before they post, or look up facts first?
2004-05-11 10:42:58 PM  
mad_asshatter -
"Well, I could turn this boy right-side-out, I guess. Nah, on second thought, it might be more effective to make a cardboard picture of myself weep." --Jesus

Inside out boy? Can someone enlighten me on this topic?
2004-05-11 10:45:53 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2004-05-11 10:47:14 PM  
Inside-out boy was this cartoon about this boy who turned inside out when he went too high on a swing.

Oh, and RTFA.
2004-05-11 10:51:27 PM  
Sorry, no, very little of the new testament can be verified. Even if there was a guy named Jesus who got nailed to a cross, exactly how does that prove he was a god? Lots and I mean lots of people were running around then who could raise the dead.

God is accepted on faith. Can't be proved. See?
2004-05-11 11:03:24 PM  
Miraculous occurances were a lot more miraculous before Fark taught me how common they are...
2004-05-11 11:10:50 PM  

Ya know where I can get a cardboard cutout for Buddy Christ? Might want to pull on of my own.
2004-05-11 11:11:19 PM  
Which is exactly why it's called faith. Some people can't believe anything without absolute proof. Others will believe even when there is proof to the contrary. Such is the state of many things, not the least of which is religion. It all eventually ends up as a matter of "faith".

Be that as it may, and as fun as it may be, it's not a cool thing to make fun of religions, especially if you aren't a part of it.

now zealots on the other hand...
2004-05-11 11:13:19 PM  
"Give them a light and they'll follow it anywhere." - Firesign Theatre

"Here in the New Age there is a seeker born every minute." - Firesign Theatre
2004-05-11 11:22:31 PM  
Master Shake will arrive to take care of inside-out boy.

HAHAHAHAHA! "I just ate a tubful of cherry cobbler."

On the topic of religion, though, if you accept that external reality is not a figment of our imaginations, then you need some sort of Creator, who could be considered a god, to have been present prior to human consciousness. The Creator, by being a conscious observer, would have collapsed the wavefunction of the universe into reality. The only way around this is to accept a many-worlds description, but then the number of universes doesn't match the probability and it all gets weird.

"Quantum theory offers at least two possible roles for a 'God', where we use this term for a being that is non-physical, non-human, in some sense superhuman, and is conscious." Squires, The Mystery of the Quantum World
2004-05-11 11:23:42 PM  
I like it the headline: Weeping cardboard Christ.

What a great phrase.

"Weeping, carborad Christ, boy! What did you do to the car?!
2004-05-11 11:42:53 PM  
>you'll know for certain that Jesus was in fact a living person and that a lot of historical information from the new testament can be verified.

Yes, there was once a very confused megolamaniac who started an insane cult which through political ruthlessness and endless evangelization eventually became popular in the last major western empire, thus Xtians everywhere.

In other words don't try to confuse the existance of a madman with all this superstitious stuff people believe.
2004-05-11 11:43:15 PM  
Bunch of momons...
2004-05-11 11:56:36 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2004-05-11 11:58:25 PM  
2004-05-11 09:24:19 PM gorfie

Those SUVs sure to gobble up gas...

/flamebait AND a bad pun... beat that. :)

...let's make that flamebait, bad pun and a bad sense of direction - try 2 articles down
2004-05-12 12:01:24 AM  
"Weeping, carborad Christ, boy! What did you do to the car?!
"Why I ran it on into Eli's pond
And we floated right across to the bar;
Where I saw my own face in all the shots
And on every two-steppin' ass.
Wanna hang myself
Round my own neck
And give the next life the pass."

/inspiration is where you find (see) it:(
2004-05-12 12:01:59 AM  
I love the parables, especially the one where Jesus told the unwashed masses something like
"Sucketh my dick and you satisfy me for a day....
Teach me to sucketh my OWN dick and..."
Well maybe I'm a little off, but I think it's in Revelations somewhere.
You can look it up.
2004-05-12 12:02:16 AM  
2004-05-12 12:14:18 AM  
"I've seen this before. This is important."
/playing with my food
2004-05-12 12:21:17 AM  

Actually there is no valid evidence for a historical jeebus at all. The documents you will no doubt bring up have all been proven to be forgeries or modified during copying to add the jeebus legend in. The jeebus myth is as old as the oldest sun god myth out there. The origin is astro-mythological; it is part of the stories handed down through oral traditions that have been with us for tens of thousands of years.

So please do not use words like "stupid" to describe those of us who have the ability to read and understand that it is mythology. The same as any mythology, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc... They all have the same origins and the same stories and legends, they borrow from each other and none are original.
2004-05-12 12:21:17 AM  
Whoever said Jesus didn't exist is wrong... I don't care if you think Jesus was our savior, or a cult-leading nutjob- records show that he did exist.

I was curious, so I took it upon myself to see if there were any records about Jesus while in a Roman lit class; I believe I found the name twice: once mentioned by a roman lieutenant gov to a superior mentioning the civil unrest caused by Jesus, and another mentioning his execution. Neither seemed to make a big deal about him, which would support both sides of the argument.

My personal philosophy: who cares what everyone else thinks. If you're a Christian, that's great. Keep on keepin' on. If you're an atheist, fantastic. If you two want to debate about it, that's cool too. BUT, anyone who goes around asserting their own belief as the only right way regarding this matter is an asshat, because there is by no stretch of the imagination enough evidence to support either side.

Jesus the dude existed; it's up to you if he was God's son or not, and I'd love to see people (both sides) stop being so damned arrogant about the whole matter in a scientific argument.

/back to music history; Schoenberg was neat. Varese was silly.
2004-05-12 12:26:53 AM  

Please see my earlier post. The documents you speak of are not accepted as proof of jeebus existence. The monastic scribes took great liberties with many of the books they copied throughout the ages. There is no proof of this myth being anything more than that, a myth. Please do not go around spouting off that a couple of forged documents make for proof.
2004-05-12 12:31:42 AM  
Name ideas for the first album:

-- Compressed Particle Savior

Featuring the hit le "Corrugated Communion".
2004-05-12 12:32:04 AM  
When you can prove that they're forged, I'll be able to prove they're real. i.e. neither of us can, no matter how strong your feelings against organized religion are.

I'm not saying they prove that the Bible is right- I'm just saying the guy existed.
2004-05-12 12:32:43 AM  
What? "Hit single" is filtered? Or I had a posting accident?!?
2004-05-12 12:43:52 AM  
from the article: "We can't always rely on the scientific," said Monsignor Richard Shirley, vicar general for the Diocese of Corpus Christi. "If it's God, it will endure."

okay then.. i guess your grandkid can't be helped by all those doctors and their medicine, so take him out of the hospital because there are plenty of other kids who need their help.
2004-05-12 12:51:01 AM  
I have doubs about your reason, and I wounder about your age.

Just because data corruption exists, not all the data must be considered false.

It is entirely likely that there was an overly intelligent carpenter's boy named Joshua, who played hookey from learning his father's trade by hiding in the temple and rapping with the rebbis. That he became a rebel with a cause, and a teacher to many who dug his line, is also not unreasonable. And, at the time, the Roman overlords were quite busy nailing-up such outspoken people. Josh was just one of many.

Your compulsive need to believe it's all a myth is probably necessary to bolster your faith in the mechanism of your logic, which is clearly your crutch.
2004-05-12 12:55:44 AM  
The Catholic Church has not yet investigated the claims.

Man, that is just what they need. The catholic church getting in on it. That kind of shiat is always rigged. I'll bet if they took the frame apart, they would find the little gadgets inside merrily pumping out the mystery fluid.

2004-05-12 12:56:07 AM  
Right, Wrong, and Meaningless

* "Why do I keep dropping things?"

* "It's the shoons."

* "What are shoons?"

* "Invisible beings that pull things out of your hands and throw them on the floor."

* "Why would I believe that?"

* "Well, if you can't disprove it, you have to believe it."

* "But you didn't prove it."

* "I can feel them. You can feel them too. You're just in denial."

* "Well I don't believe it."

* "So you are an ashoonist."

* "What's an ashoonist?"

* "One who arbitrarily refuses to believe in shoons. You wonder why you drop things, but you arbitrarily reject the explanation."

* "Okay then, I'm an ashoonist."

* "But ashoonists are all cynics and killjoys! Is that the kind of company you want to keep?"

What a silly way to argue! Or is it? If you separate the method of argument from the content, then you might notice that it is the most common of all methods of argument: the arbitrary declaration. They say that something is so, and you have to either disprove it or agree with it. Refusing to do either is joining the Meanies.

It's a paradox. You cannot reject an assertion without reason, but you could waste the whole day finding reasons to reject arbitrary assertions. An epistemology of reason solves the paradox by taking away permission to make assertions in the first place without reasons.

Come to think of it, where did that permission come from? If an assertion does not come with an observable connection to reality, why would anybody pay attention to it? Well, if it has to be either right or wrong, then you have to decide which, and you have to be reasonable. So you can't reject anything without disproving it.

But what if a statement could be something else besides right or wrong? What if it could also be simply meaningless?

Right and wrong are relationships to reality - correspondence and non-correspondence. To judge a statement as right or wrong, you compare it to reality, by finding what part of reality it compares to. If a statement does not say what part of reality it compares to, then it is presented without connection to reality. It could mean all sorts of things, depending on where it fits in reality. Since that is not specified, it means nothing. It conveys words, but not meaning. Since you cannot call it right, and you cannot call it wrong, you call it arbitrary. Arbitrary means lacking any evidence of a relationship to reality.

To treat arbitrary assertions as right is to be a self-made sucker. To treat them as wrong is to try judging without evidence. The objective way is to realize that assertions without evidence are meaningless. No matter how much emotion they contain, nothing has been said.

Here's a completion of the original argument:

* "Wait! Before you told me about the shoons, was I a shoonist, or an ashoonist?"

* "Well, neither. That word just meant nothing to you."

* "And it still means nothing to me. Try me again when you've got evidence."
2004-05-12 12:59:35 AM  
FeBolas: My personal philosophy: who cares what everyone else thinks. If you're a Christian, that's great. Keep on keepin' on. If you're an atheist, fantastic. If you two want to debate about it, that's cool too. BUT, anyone who goes around asserting their own belief as the only right way regarding this matter is an asshat, because there is by no stretch of the imagination enough evidence to support either side.

Now there's a wonderful philosophy. It's not that either Christian, atheist, or anything else is right or wrong. It's certainty itself that's evil and wrong.

/I wonder if he's sure that certainty is wrong
2004-05-12 01:04:26 AM  
Ah! The Shoonist-Ashoonist illustration, a classic.

Please remind me who wrote that, Anagram.
2004-05-12 01:09:48 AM  
Nanookanano: Ah! The Shoonist-Ashoonist illustration, a classic.

Please remind me who wrote that, Anagram.

It was James Sedgwick, whose site is most unfortunately down at the current time.

I keep posting it because people keep missing the message. It used to include a link to the original site, until the site went down.
2004-05-12 01:10:34 AM  
shoon? I thought you said shrooms! They fark around with me when I eat the big ones....hahaha
2004-05-12 01:11:11 AM  
>My personal philosophy: who cares what everyone else thinks. If you're a Christian, that's great.

Obviously you don't pay attention to politics. If Xtians stopped trying to impose their "morals" and stopped working for a theocracy then no one would care.
2004-05-12 01:16:27 AM  
The objectivist, right?

I read that illustration some twenty years ago, as a Philosophy minor. Thanks!
2004-05-12 01:19:51 AM  
Nanookanano: The objectivist, right?

I read that illustration some twenty years ago, as a Philosophy minor. Thanks!

You're welcome.
2004-05-12 01:19:54 AM  

re: the shooms

That was awesome! First time I'd seen both that example and a detailed explanation of the logical processes behind it. Cheers!
2004-05-12 01:21:18 AM  
Oops, I mean 'shoons'. >_<
2004-05-12 01:27:44 AM  

There are at least 25 arguments for the existence of God that do not require arbitrary assertions. While I agree that arguments of the form you show often appear in these threads, it is more interesting to debate the reasonable claims rather than attempt to correct people who, as you pointed out, cannot be argued with.
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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.