I'm using an apt metaphor to make a joke, not insulting anyone or making any sort of argument. You see the joke as insulting and argumentative because the apt metaphor triggers some self-realization that puts you on the defensive... consider why.
When the punchline of your joke is essentially "your religion is fake and you're stupid for believing it" you can't claim that you had no intention to insult anyone or make an argument. If you're going to mock a religion and the people that follow it at least have the common courtesy to stand by your statement and not blame people for seeing it for what it plainly is. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
"your religion is fake and you're stupid for believing it"
Your words, no one else's, but if you find truth in them, that's fine with me.
I don't think that's the punchline, by the way, nor do I think it's a criticism of Christianity per se, humorous or otherwise. It points out, in an extremely mild way, that the people who insist on inserting "prayers" in every Facebook post, forum message and email signature are talking into a void, as most of humanity doesn't share their religion. It's worthwhile to remind Christian proselytizers that their messages are no more "valid" or "meaningful" than any other religions' and that this might something to think about before strapping on the preachy loudspeaker. If you would find it weird to hear from someone that they are burning calf bones on your behalf to placate Zeus, then you shouldn't be surprised that they find it a little weird you've decided to pray to Jesus on their behalf for some reason.
Can't we just let a well-meant thought be a well-meant thought? There's no way that I've thought of yet to think that "I'll pray for you" deserves backlash.
Fishbone do you exist solely to troll kalbahamut? I have seen a few of your comments now all declaring that kal has lost an argument and nothing else except maybe a casual insult.
First time I've noticed this person but yes my head is so full of thoughts of how amazing I am that I am much too stupid to understand that I got owned by the guy snootily ranking forms of humor so as to make themselves feel superior to someone making a joke they disagree with. He's totally got me pegged.
TWM03, I call 'em like I see 'em. thanks for noticing that I give opinions (both good and bad). Kal has enough trolls already and knows how to put on his big boy pants, he doesn't need me.
Oh dear, very touchy. Nobody knows anything about Habbakuk, they can't even say with any certainty where and when he lived (if at all). His name may be derived from a Hebrew word meaning "embrace," or an Akkadian one, "hambakuku," for a type of plant. Which is not much less silly than a fish, surely?
Christians don't mind discussing fish, as long as they appear in pairs and accompanied by five loaves of bread, feeding five thousand people. A halibut was once caught off the coast of Norway which was 8'7" across and weighed 515ibs, which would make it a great choice of fish for any caterer to serve at such a gathering. If halibut is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for anyone else, including Monsieur Habbakuk.
It doesn't give a date for Christ's birth, just as it doesn't say how many wise men there were, and it certainly doesn't mention a Christmas tree in the desert land nor tell about Santa Claus. Not all our Christmas traditions come from the Bible. I have no problems with celebrating arbitrarily assigned days to honor Christ's birth, death, and resurrection, nor do I have a problem with celebrating traditions that were integrated from other cultures or pagan celebrations, such as Christmas trees, Easter eggs, etc I celebrate both the religious holidays and some of the secular traditions. There are sects of Christianity who do not celebrate Christmas for reasons such as the one you mentioned, and I have no problem with them, either. I've never had anyone tell me I can't celebrate the religious holiday, but if it happened, then that I would have a problem with. To those of you who celebrate this time of year, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and/or Happy Holidays to all.
The days aren't actually arbitrary, but they come from pagan tradition predating Christianity. And I have no problem with Christians assigning significance to the date, either, or taking older traditions and putting their own spin on them. And I certainly don't take any issue with the idea that there should be a day where people try to be nicer to each other or celebrate family or generosity or other stuff like that. Just a bit of fun, on all sides of this comment.
Putting Christmas on December 25 was actually based on a Jewish tradition that a prophet would die the same day he was conceived. Some Early Christians believed Jesus was this prophet, and since the traditional date of Jesus' crucifixion was around March 25, they put the date of his birth 9 months later.
Nowhere. Apparently, archaeological studies say that Jesus was born in a period correspondent to the month of October. I believe it was this date by convention of the Catholics, and the date stayed like that, although we celebrate Jesus’s birthday everyday.
There is no archaeological evidence that Jesus was ever born at all, let alone that indicates which month he was born. The simple fact of the matter is we do not know and likely never will. But there were holidays set near the the winter solstice long before the first century AD. When Christianity became a Roman religion, it co-opted many pagan Roman holidays and traditions.
According to the bible, Jesus was murdered when he was 33 and 1/2 years old. Since his arrest was effected sometime after he celebrated the last supper (Passover dinner) with his apostles,
and as the Passover is always celebrated in either later March or early April, counting six months from April would bring us to October. Thus, it is likely that Jesus was born sometime in October, while it was still warm enough for the shepherds to be out in the field with their flock.
It's warm enough in Israel for shepherds to sleep outside all year. Especially 2000 years ago when people weren't accustomed to indoor climate controls. And Jesus was executed as a criminal, according to tradition, not murdered.
Pilate admitted there was no basis for his execution. Since he wasn't a criminal in that sense, it is fair to say he was murdered. And his crucifixion was not traditional. There were many things that were done differently with the intent to cause more pain and suffering than usual.
No, there wasn't. It was just like any other crucifixion, except for the plaque above Jesus' head. They have found a heelbone (I think it was a heelbone) of a crucified man from the period, with a nail through it, so saying it was only with tying them to crosses is inaccurate, or that Jesus' crucifixion was special. (Apart from the "Supernatural Darkness", the earthquake, the torn veil, etc.)
You believe that a civilization that executed criminals by nailing them to elevated posts and slowly letting them die agonizing deaths to sepsis, exposure, dehydration and/or animal predation is concerned about the humane treatment of political prisoners and traitors to the empire? You've been sold a bill of goods, man.
Except that that isn't how they executed other criminals. Crucifixion involved tying people to the cross, not nailing them. And it didn't involve beating them while making them carry their own cross through the streets, placing a crown of thorns on their heads, whipping them repeatedly while spitting on them and calling them names, piercing their sides with a spear. Of course, if you believe the Bible is just a book of fictional stories then this argument won't mean anything to you. But, as written, you have to acknowledge that Jesus' crucifixion was anything but normal.
Also, I didn't say that Jesus' death being a murder vs a criminal death sentence had anything to do with which method was more humane. It had to do with Jesus' treatment being intentionally more brutal and more specifically Pilate's admission that he could find nothing Jesus was guilty of. Again, he wasn't a criminal, so that makes this a murder.
I think it's fair to say a person who was killed without legal reason on the whims of a mob was murdered. The way I'm looking at this is killing someone with a lethal injection, or an electric chair is automatically an execution according to this thought process.
Pilate said that he found no reason for crucifix Jesus. He could basically say a “f*** up” to the people who pressuring for the crucifix of Jesus, and release Him, but was everything already “consummate”. If not by that we wouldn’t be free of the sin (although we still sin), and have the chance of live with God in the heaven.
It's Psalm when referring to a single chapter. (Psalm 23, Psalm 51) Though when referring to the book, it's Psalms, as it is a collection of 150 of what is individually referred to as a Psalm.
We studied everything but the Protestants, who were nice in Canada. The Unitarian Universalists have been amazing. I love working and volunteering with them, and getting to know a couple in a nursing home where I worked. My friend Dee, Protestant though Russian Jewish, Irish and Native, went to mass with me, and I went to her church.
tldr! I'll respectfully learn, and complete this quiz
Know them all in danish, but struggled real hard with the english names and spelling. Got them all however, except Ecclesiastes and Lamentations, which are called something entirely different in danish.
Would God give you credit for knowing the names of nearly all the books of the Bible in some language that the books weren't originally written in and isn't your first language? What sort of credit would he give you? Do you think I should learn them in as many languages as possible? Do some languages count more than others? I wonder if God would give me credit for learning languages generally...
To answer your question, TWM03. But your consistently smug apathy for everything to do with Christianity along with your desire to make that apathy known to every person on Jetpunk was in equally poor taste.
Average score is 41, wow I thought I was pretty average with 10.. I guess mainly religious people (or with religious upbringing) took this quiz and others avoided it.
Damn, super tough for someone who's not Christian or from a Christian family. I did read it for some basic understanding at some point but I didn't really pay attention to the book names. 26/66 isn't even close to average but I feel like I performed fairly well. Many of those were guesses though.
Why do people argue about religion so much? Is it that hard to let someone believe in what they want to believe? I get it when some of the statements are practically discriminatory and wrong but come on. Not everyone is like that.
I can never get closer than missing two or three. I try to remember the books of the Bible songs, but I always end up singing things like "Epistle to the Klingons."
Evangelical Christian here. Got 'em all quickly. I'm as passionate as other evangelicals on reaching others with the gospel. To those on BOTH sides of all these comments: everyone needs to chill. This is trivia! It's supposed to be fun! I for one am glad that someone made this quiz; great that God's word gets the attention, but sheesh!
Your words, no one else's, but if you find truth in them, that's fine with me.
I don't think that's the punchline, by the way, nor do I think it's a criticism of Christianity per se, humorous or otherwise. It points out, in an extremely mild way, that the people who insist on inserting "prayers" in every Facebook post, forum message and email signature are talking into a void, as most of humanity doesn't share their religion. It's worthwhile to remind Christian proselytizers that their messages are no more "valid" or "meaningful" than any other religions' and that this might something to think about before strapping on the preachy loudspeaker. If you would find it weird to hear from someone that they are burning calf bones on your behalf to placate Zeus, then you shouldn't be surprised that they find it a little weird you've decided to pray to Jesus on their behalf for some reason.
Christians don't mind discussing fish, as long as they appear in pairs and accompanied by five loaves of bread, feeding five thousand people. A halibut was once caught off the coast of Norway which was 8'7" across and weighed 515ibs, which would make it a great choice of fish for any caterer to serve at such a gathering. If halibut is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for anyone else, including Monsieur Habbakuk.
It comes in handy... although not for spelling. :P
kidding... Merry Christmas, JetPunkers
Merry (late) Christmas for you also :)
and as the Passover is always celebrated in either later March or early April, counting six months from April would bring us to October. Thus, it is likely that Jesus was born sometime in October, while it was still warm enough for the shepherds to be out in the field with their flock.
Also, I didn't say that Jesus' death being a murder vs a criminal death sentence had anything to do with which method was more humane. It had to do with Jesus' treatment being intentionally more brutal and more specifically Pilate's admission that he could find nothing Jesus was guilty of. Again, he wasn't a criminal, so that makes this a murder.
If it were only one, then it would be Psalm. (Check your nearest bible)
tldr! I'll respectfully learn, and complete this quiz
"OMG, I did so great on this. I'm an atheist BTW. Christians are soooo last millennium."
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom of Jesus, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees