SG Broadband Community

we came up with the line last night and i just threw it on this pic ... what do you guys think ?

I don't get it.

I didn't think it was funny

Cute kid tho.

Pie

its a nice picture, but i dont get it.

major marco wrote:I don't get it.

whs

Al Capowned...

Makes no sense to me either.

didn't jesus have a son or something... whcih would make it funny cos you'd think that the big head of faith(jesus) would never have kids... or something... something

Something to do with Priests only liking little boys?

porkchop wrote:didn't jesus have a son or something... whcih would make it funny cos you'd think that the big head of faith(jesus) would never have kids... or something... something

No, Jesus didn't have any kids.

And I don't get it either. Since faith and abstinence have nothing to do with each other.

The joke is supposed to be about how the "Good Christian" doesn't have premarital sex or any of that. It isn't a very good joke though.

Since I still had it on my server...

Yeah.. unfortunately if you have even a remote knowledge of christianity you would know that the image there is the one where Jesus says we should be like the children etc.. so the effect is lost unless you are some form of illiterate atheist/not a member of a western civilization.

Massa wrote:Yeah.. unfortunately if you have even a remote knowledge of christianity you would know that the image there is the one where Jesus says we should be like the children etc.. so the effect is lost unless you are some form of illiterate atheist/not a member of a western civilization.

so i am an illiterate atheist because i don't understand the pictures meaning acording to you, ya know not everyone reads or has read the bible.

to me the picture is just some guy with a little girl on his lap, could be her father or something, who knows.

No mark.. I am saying the joke is lost on you UNLESS you are an illiterate atheist. That would put you in the normal people category. I was making a jab at CF and his bussies.. not those of us who can't see the meaning. Sorry man.

Massa wrote:UNLESS you are an illiterate atheist.

Illiterate - one who doesn't or cannot read. Not well educated.

Maybe a poor choice of words? Personally, I don't know the bible because I don't read fiction...too much time reading technical manuals, I guess, to spend time on fiction.

Illiterate is exactly the word i intended to use. Simply because 99% of people who have ever read at all, have read a magazine, or at the very least a book of some sort that is not a manual, will have seen reference to christianity and the christ and children message.

As to fiction - I find that comment extremely funny coming from one who seems to be educated. If you were aware AT ALL of the current state of debate regarding the bible as fiction, you would be aware that it is almost undisputed that the bible is based on factual happenings in the past. There is debate regarding the spiritual phenomena that occured, and some misunderstainding regarding majoer events such as the flood, since the world to them was a small portion of the mid-east but i digress. The only dispute regarding the central teachings of the Bible, is whether Christ was the messiah, though it is widely accepted and considered proven that he existed AS A MAN. If you want to discredit the bible as fiction, I suggest you do some more research. For further information, see this link:

http://archaeology.about.com/b/a/130335.htm


Dave

Fiction? HA!

porkchop wrote:didn't jesus have a son or something... whcih would make it funny cos you'd think that the big head of faith(jesus) would never have kids... or something... something

I have read stories about that, as well as stories about travels through Europe and Asia, as well as ending up and finally being buried in Japan. I would guess its hard to actually prove since records werent really kept but the evidence was extremely strange in regards to sayings , grave markings, and a few other things. We will never really know the truth since it was a long time ago.
History has been changed many times (Corrected)as we grow and learn, and who knows what will happen in the future to come.

Prey521 wrote:No, Jesus didn't have any kids.

I take it that The Last Temptation Of Christ isn't the most-viewed DVD at your place.

Jim wrote:I take it that The Last Temptation Of Christ isn't the most-viewed DVD at your place.

Talk about the antithesis of all that is Prey. :P

Massa wrote:Illiterate is exactly the word i intended to use. Simply because 99% of people who have ever read at all, have read a magazine, or at the very least a book of some sort that is not a manual, will have seen reference to christianity and the christ and children message.

As to fiction - I find that comment extremely funny coming from one who seems to be educated. If you were aware AT ALL of the current state of debate regarding the bible as fiction, you would be aware that it is almost undisputed that the bible is based on factual happenings in the past. There is debate regarding the spiritual phenomena that occured, and some misunderstainding regarding majoer events such as the flood, since the world to them was a small portion of the mid-east but i digress. The only dispute regarding the central teachings of the Bible, is whether Christ was the messiah, though it is widely accepted and considered proven that he existed AS A MAN. If you want to discredit the bible as fiction, I suggest you do some more research. For further information, see this link:

http://archaeology.about.com/b/a/130335.htm


Dave

There is no real proof at all...sorry to get your hopes up. I can go on and on about all evidence showing there is no real proof but why bother.

Myself personally I dont believe Jesus ever physcially existed and was just made up like other Greek and Roman myths.


P.S. that link actually shows there is no real evidence and it is a matter of faith to believe it or not. You might want to put up a better link next time to help prove your point..LOL

My point with that link was to show something that had a "fairly" unbiased view (it seems a lot of posters here are happy to post the first link on google..however biased). As to your contention that it IS fictional - i see no proof supporting that point either. I am just curious.. but do you deny that Babylon existed? That there is archaeological evidence of a large number of biblical places having actually existed? As I said.. Jesus actual existence is largely accepted as fact - if you believe that multiple references to the man in papyrus of that era do not account to proof then you may as well deny that anything you read is true. Scientific proof of any theory is tenuous at best, illusory at worst and in any case where multiple written documents attest to the historical presence of a character it is largely accepted as simply that - fact. I am making no outright claims as to Jesus' actual fulfillment of being the Messiah, or anything other than that he did exist. If there is not enough proof for you that the bible is largely factual then one might ask yourself why you go around chasing things that far fewer people believe in, and has not a mote of science behind it.

At least I know where fire came from - http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/promethe.html

Massa wrote:My point with that link was to show something that had a "fairly" unbiased view (it seems a lot of posters here are happy to post the first link on google..however biased). As to your contention that it IS fictional - i see no proof supporting that point either. I am just curious.. but do you deny that Babylon existed? That there is archaeological evidence of a large number of biblical places having actually existed? As I said.. Jesus actual existence is largely accepted as fact - if you believe that multiple references to the man in papyrus of that era do not account to proof then you may as well deny that anything you read is true. Scientific proof of any theory is tenuous at best, illusory at worst and in any case where multiple written documents attest to the historical presence of a character it is largely accepted as simply that - fact. I am making no outright claims as to Jesus' actual fulfillment of being the Messiah, or anything other than that he did exist. If there is not enough proof for you that the bible is largely factual then one might ask yourself why you go around chasing things that far fewer people believe in, and has not a mote of science behind it.

What is my reasoning? inconsistency and inaccuracies in the bible, becuase there have been over 60 different authors, spanning over 1,000 years.

Add to that outside the bible, there are very few if any historical references of Jesus.

I am sure there was a man named Jesus somewhere down the road, but as far as what we know of Jesus is next to nothing. remember nothing in the bible was written firsthand from Jesus. Everything is heresay.

Now if you want to get really meticulous, based on the Torah (old testament) Jesus never really fulfilled the prophecies. But then again none of that matters if i dont even believe he ever existed.

Since this is no longer a disucssion about the digital media but more in line with religion, let's move it.

I don't get it.