Faith: Not As Effective As Bullet-Proof Glass

I got a kick out of this:

political-pictures-pope-benedict-xvi-faith-bulletproof

Seriously though — if the Pope is really “Jesus Christ’s representative on earth,” then why doesn’t Jesus protect him? It seems like he’s almost a… gasp… normal human without supernatural protection!

If the Pope doesn’t even trust God with his life, why should you?

Update: I love this comment by Steven Carr: “While Pope John Paul II praised Mary for deflecting the bullet so it did not kill him, it appears they are now taking no chances on Mary’s bullet-deflecting abilities.”

  • Elemenope

    I recall no passage that claims the pope shall be made bulletproof.

    All kidding aside, Jesus never said “believe in me, and I will protect you from all physical harm”. (The only one that comes close is the wacky handling snakes and swallowing poisons text in Mark which pretty much everyone these days agrees was a later insertion into the text.)

    So while it is fun to make fun over an apparent lack of faith, I don’t really see how this qualifies. The Pope’s safety is not guaranteed by any teaching, and one must assume the Pope is aware of this fact.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I disagree with Elemenope. There are numerous passages (don’t make me go chapter and verse on you) telling you to go all que sera, don’t worry about the future, whatever happens is God’s will.

  • Elemenope

    Selkirk –

    Isn’t getting shot with a bullet under the possible set of “whatever happens” that might be in God’s will? Couldn’t those passages be read along the lines of “don’t worry whether you live or die”?

  • Jeremy

    Well when it comes down to it Christians don’t really believe in miracles anyway.

    When they hear of a person claiming “God told me to kill my children” they instinctively know that person is crazy. We all do. Doesn’t matter what God told Abraham; when it happens in the real world Christians respond like anyone else. If I claimed to have literally moved a mountain with my faith no Christian would believe me.

    Christians go to a doctor when they’re sick. They may pray as well, but they’ll definitely go to a doctor, and they’ll look at you like you’re crazy if you don’t.

    Christians will wear seat belts and follow safety instructions and buy insurance and save for retirement just like anyone else. They may claim that they believe God heals and God protects and God provides, but it doesn’t tend to turn into action.

    So the fact that they’re protecting the pope is no surprise. They have no illusions of God providing protection, so they’ll do it themselves.

  • http://www.elysekufeldt.com Elyse

    Elemenope:

    Precisely. If the Pope is the representative of Christ’s teachings, shouldn’t he not worry if he lives or dies by not having bulletproof glass?

  • http://arkonbey.blogspot.com arkonbey

    If God’s will is the issue, why use bulletproof glass anyway?

    To me, it seems that using the glass is saying that they don’t belive in God’s will. If they truly believed in the omnipotence of God, they would do away with the glass. If he gets shot, he gets shot.

    • Joe

      But what if the creation of the pope mobile was gods will? It isn’t fair to say God must only work via mystical means.

  • Elemenope

    Elyse –

    I imagine the converse proposition is that if God really wanted to off the Pope for some inscrutable reason, bulletproof glass wouldn’t be much of an impediment.

    I’ve never much understood this meme that prudence and faith are mutually exclusive or antagonistic. If “whatever will be, will be”, then included in that equation implicitly is the notion that those from whom the actions proceed and those to whom the actions occur will all behave in a manner concordant with their own good sense. One might say that God assumes that people will use the tools at their disposal to attempt to create the outcome they think is best.

    Most Christians see the capacity for developing and using medicine and technology (like, for example, bulletproof glass) to be blessings, and tend to look down on those who don’t (like, for example, Christian Scientists) as having an insufficiently narrow understanding of divine providence.

  • Steve Jeffers

    I think the question is how Christians reconcile the practical and their belief.

    Is there doublethink at work? I have a friend who has no problem holding the idea that God created everything roughly as it says in the Bible, but also that the scientific model is true. She talks about poetry and metaphor and stuff, and has definitely thought it through. It’s like there are two realities, and we have to live in one and strive for the other.

    Hmmmm.

    Christians clearly look both ways before crossing the street. I think it really is like that joke about the husband and wife, where she says he never does anything and he says ‘you worry about the little stuff like the cooking and cleaning and I’ll worry about the big stuff like football and what’s going on in the news’.

  • Jeremy

    “I have a friend who has no problem holding the idea that God created everything roughly as it says in the Bible, but also that the scientific model is true. She talks about poetry and metaphor and stuff, and has definitely thought it through.”

    When I was a Christian I thought this as well, in fact I still think it’s the only proper way to read Genesis. I don’t think the author ever intended anyone to fight about whether or not the “days” were literal. The bible was not written as a science textbook and anyone who treats it as such–either the Christian or the atheist–is doing it a disservice.

    The creation account is extremely, intentionally, short on details, though you’d never know that if you just listened to the creation science people.

  • Sunny Day

    Pope – “God why did you let me die?”

    God – “I tried to prevent it. You turned away from me when you didn’t listen to your security adviser.

    Or some other nonsense.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    I don’t think the author ever intended anyone to fight about whether or not the “days” were literal. The bible was not written as a science textbook and anyone who treats it as such–either the Christian or the atheist–is doing it a disservice.

    I think it’s very hard to argue about where or not the authors (or the editors) of Genesis intended it to be taken literally. Did they really believe that the sky was a solid boundary, above which was an endless ocean? Did they really believe that there was light before the sun? These don’t seem like unreasonable beliefs for a pre-scientific culture to have held literally.

    But we have so little literature from the culture in question that we really can’t know how seriously they took this; it’s not like the Greeks, where you have philosophers explicitly stating that most people believed in the literal existence of Zeus and co.

    Did they mean for Genesis to be taken literally or metaphorically? How can we ever know? Would they even have understood the question?

  • dr.R.

    Christians go to a doctor when they’re sick. They may pray as well, but they’ll definitely go to a doctor, and they’ll look at you like you’re crazy if you don’t.

    That is not quite true for all Xians. There are conservative groups who oppose, for example, vaccination against diseases as they believe that everything is “predestined”. I’m not sure if they use their seat belts, though.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    And, in an remarkable example of serendipity, a comment on Slacktivist just said something I’m pretty sure I agree with:

    You are assuming that the ancient consumers of these stories understood a distinction between telling a history of the distant past, and telling a non-historical story about the distant past. But that wasn’t true of anyone until the concept of history was invented. And it is a concept that requires invention. This can be hard for us to see. But consider: what is the purpose of telling a narrative about the distant past? Some purposes are inherently compelling: certain sorts of narratives can give a community a sense of continuity over time, a sense of who they are in relation to each other, to their ancestors, to the world; they can provide symbols around which people can structure their imaginative lives; they can transmit ideals that will help form how people live, etc. Call these myths. It is easy to understand why people would tell myths, given that they are meant to do things that really matter to how people live. Now, the historian’s purpose is different. It is to figure out the facts of the distant past, in a way that is in some sense detached from the concrete interests that are served by myths. But you should see how weird it is that anyone could come up with this apparently purposeless purpose. It can be hard to see how history matters; with myths it is obvious.

  • cello

    @ Jeremy,

    I think what actually holds the creation/literalist view up is not so much the “six days” but the genealogy. You could accommodate the six days not being six 24 hour periods but then the genealogy listings in the NT tracing Jesus back to Adam trip you up – unless one was willing to allow that some of those generations lived for a few thousand years each.

  • Elemenope

    Would they even have understood the question?

    And that is the right question. The disentanglement of observation from narrative, and description from metaphor, is a very recent advent in the historical evolution of human ideas.

    Oddly enough, people like Moses ben Maimon and Baruch Spinoza were the ones to start drawing those lines in earnest, so while the ancient Hebrews may not have understood the question, Judaism as a culture has owned this conversation for a while and come up with most of the answers we today accept as a matter of course. It is no accident that the vast majority of Jewish denominations believe that their Genesis text is metaphorical narrative, and not a literal description of events.

  • Elemenope

    Whoa, kismet.

  • Jeremy

    @ cello,

    Well Adam came in the last of the six days. Tracing the genealogies back to him only gets you to the end of the “creation process”. There’s no telling how long that process took if we’re willing to acknowledge that the days don’t have to be days.

    @ wintermute,

    No doubt primitive cultures would hold as facts things that we recognize as myths. My only point was that modern “creation science” has added MUCH to the biblical creation account, or made assumptions that are just not in the text. One can, I think, very reasonably believe in the bible while still acknowledging the scientific understanding of how the earth was formed. I did for many years.

    Of course today I recognize Genesis as simply the myth of a very primitive culture, but even at the peak of my faith I still regarded the “creation science” apologists as a bit of an embarrassment. I steadfastly avoided all creation vs evolution presentations, even the ones at my own church.

  • http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/ Steven Carr

    The previous Pope was shot, as we all remember.

    A terrible thing to have happened.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516124.ece

    While Pope JP2 praised Mary for deflecting the bullet so it did not kill him, it appears that they are now taking no chances on Mary’s bullet-deflecting abilities.

  • cello

    @ Jeremy

    But the reason the creationists have worked out roughly 6,000 years ago as the creation of the world is based on those genealogies. They’ve taken the time to do the math in the Bible to trace the years from Jesus to Adam. The “first man” as per historical evidence appeared much farther back then 6,000 years. So the first man appeared much earlier than the literal, Biblical timeline says Adam did.

    The only way the genealogy can work out to jive with historical evidence is if they are heroic genealogies – and not at all literal.

  • http://thinworker.wordpress.com/ Philip

    I like these posters. i think they are funny. anyone ever seen the moose knuckle one?

    anyway, i agree with some of the comments that lots of christians believe God has given us a mind and creativity and if we have created ways to help ourselves live longer and safer then it’s ok to take them.

    you can pray and go to the doctor. i don’ think they have to be mutually exclusive.

  • http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/ Steven Carr

    ‘It is no accident that the vast majority of Jewish denominations believe that their Genesis text is metaphorical narrative, and not a literal description of events.’

    And no accident that Jewish calendars claim it is a literal description of events.

    Today is 24 Shvat, 5769

  • Reginald Selkirk

    The previous Pope was shot, as we all remember.
    A terrible thing to have happened.

    And then a cruel doctor removed the bullet and patched up the pope’s body, thus keeping him from being greeted as a martyr by Jehovah at the gates of Heaven that very day.

  • Elemenope

    Steven Carr –

    The Hebrew calendar was created *long* before the changes in perspective I described. And since when does a person have to throw out a tool (like a calendar) simply because our understanding of what it means or how it works changed?

    You’d be hard pressed to find a Jew today who would claim that this is literally the 5,769th year of Earth’s existence. So, no, those using the calendar are not claiming anything like what you describe, even if those who originally, a very long time ago, created it believed it.

    The names of the days and months in the Julian (and later Gregorian) calendar have similarly mythic (or silly, if you like) origins. *Our* use of them makes no implication of what we believe today.

  • Barry

    The charge that prudence and faith are at odds i think is a false charge as Elemenope asserts, but there is a further problem. If your view of divine providence is meticulous in nature, the calvinist position, then you shouldn’t ever be upset with how things happen in the world around you. If your wife gets raped, or your dad murdered, or you lose all your money in the stock market it all happened according to a divine plan, ordained before time.

    This doesn’t negate all theism of course, but it’s a serious charge for the theology of a large proportion of theists.

  • Proto
  • dr.R.

    Quite interesting. Wintermute wrote:

    Did they mean for Genesis to be taken literally or metaphorically? How can we ever know? Would they even have understood the question?

    That’s the question indeed. But suppose they did make that distinction, and suppose they did mean Genesis (and many other stories) metaphorically, would they not have had any ideas then about the actual history of the world? And if so, on what were these ideas based, in the absence of any scientific and historiographic tradition?

  • dr.R.

    Darn, now I messed up my blockquotes. And it’s not even Friday the 13th!

    Faith, not quite as effective as doublechecking your html code.

  • http://xyblogofstuff.blogspot.com/ xy

    @Steven Carr

    everybody gets one.

  • http://www.recusatorysarcasm.wordpress.com Sam

    Hey, even Jesus had a posse to get his back

  • Ty

    “you can pray and go to the doctor. i don’ think they have to be mutually exclusive.”

    Only one of them will actually help, though.

  • http://whyareyousofat.wordpress.com McBloggenstein

    Elemenope

    “So while it is fun to make fun over an apparent lack of faith, I don’t really see how this qualifies.”

    …party pooper :)

    “The Pope’s safety is not guaranteed by any teaching, and one must assume the Pope is aware of this fact.”

    I feel you missed the point though, that this is not just any guy with faith, it’s the friggen Pope! I understand your point though.

    Regarding Daniel’s last sentence, that reads: “If the Pope doesn’t even trust God with his life, why should you?”

    …I would change it to say:
    If the Pope doesn’t trust God’s will to keep something from happening to him that he doesn’t want to happen, like being shot, then why should you?

  • Dr. Kate

    I feel about this the same way I feel about the Catholic church’s position on birth control: If God wants me to be dead (or pregnant), I don’t think all the bullet-proof glass (or reservoir-tipped rubber) in the world is going to stop it.

    It seems to me that people who argue against birth control, or medicine, or seat belts, or whatever as being “against God’s will” have a pretty low estimation of His abilities. I mean, really–God isn’t stronger than a rubber?

  • http://mixingtracks.blogspot.com professoryackle

    “you can pray and go to the doctor. i don’ think they have to be mutually exclusive.”

    Only one of them will actually help, though.

    Playing devil’s advocate for a mo, what’s wrong with praying if it makes you feel better in yourself, calmer, whatever? So long as you go to the Dr / take other appropriate action too?

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    “Playing devil’s advocate for a mo, what’s wrong with praying if it makes you feel better in yourself, calmer, whatever? So long as you go to the Dr / take other appropriate action too?”

    mark: I would agree that nothing is wrong with praying. However when it comes with the dogma of the church behind it and it influences people not to use thier brains then I have a problem with it.

    For instance if churches and thier holy rollers are going to dogmatically insist that prayer works but then only count the 1 instance where after praying someone gets better and not recognize all of the times folks pray but the person still dies or does not get any better then prayer has become a dangerous thing in my opinion. Because at this point the church is promoting sillyness.

  • http://mixingtracks.blogspot.com professoryackle

    @mark

    Ah, but then comes the disclaimer: god hears and answers all your prayers, but according to his will not yours… I’ve been told that he knows whats best for us better than we do, and answers accordingly.

    Silly, I agree. Infuriating, too. Strangely convincing when you’re under the impression he exists.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @professoryackle:

    Playing devil’s advocate for a mo, what’s wrong with praying if it makes you feel better in yourself, calmer, whatever? So long as you go to the Dr / take other appropriate action too?

    In italics lies the rub.

    http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20949/ava-worthington-2

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/09/07/jw-crohns.html

    Faith: ineffective

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    “Silly, I agree. Infuriating, too. Strangely convincing when you’re under the impression he exists.”

    mark: How true and guesse what, no matter what logic or common sense might demonstrate. The holy rollers have the answer because the “holy bible” says so.

    Also dangerous I might add.

  • Steve Jeffers

    ‘The disentanglement of observation from narrative, and description from metaphor, is a very recent advent in the historical evolution of human ideas.’

    Well … yes. It happened when a series of scientific discoveries made the Biblical account untenable.

    That’s the inconvenient truth for Christians who talk about how it’s ‘obvious’ the Bible is a metaphor – it only became ‘obvious’ once it was disproved as literal truth. Even around 1800, the Deists couldn’t quite get things to work without at least a ‘light the blue touchpaper and stand back’ type of God.

    It’s also a crummy metaphor. The universe is ancient, life developed slowly, there was no special creation for the human race … so how is it a ‘metaphor’ to say the universe is recent, life appeared in a week and there was a special creation for mankind? Really, really cold is not a ‘metaphor’ for boiling hot.

  • Elemenope

    However when it comes with the dogma of the church behind it and it influences people not to use their brains then I have a problem with it.

    Not for nothing, but I have never met a Jesuit who couldn’t use his brains.

    The problem (with some believers) seems to lie with people utterly sucking at understanding what the respective role of thought and doctrine are, and not necessarily with the doctrine itself.

    …party pooper :)

    LOL!

    …I would change it to say: If the Pope doesn’t trust God’s will to keep something from happening to him that he doesn’t want to happen, like being shot, then why should you?

    There is precious little in considered Christian doctrine that ought to make a person believe that God is there simply to serve as a wishing well. Faith isn’t (supposed to be) a means to an end, functionalistic, results-oriented. It’s supposed to be an end-in-itself, a metaphysical assertion. If you believe that prayer *should work*, then your ideas about prayer are pretty messed up to begin with.

    A person can believe and still get screwed over royally by God’s plan. The point is if you believe, you believe that getting screwed over meant something in the bigger picture.

  • http://WhoHasTimeForThis.com David Cowan

    Any criticism of the Pope must be wrong since He is infallible.

    I just want to know what Lotto numbers he picks…

  • Elemenope

    Steve Jeffers –

    Not for nothing, but as I previously mentioned, the Jews were taking the thing as a metaphor long before ‘science’ was doing much more than messing about with alchemical jibberjabber.

    That Christians were slower on the uptake probably has something to do with the fact that they had to deal with centralized ecclesiastical authority (and the inherent reactionary conservatism that concentrated power inevitably generates). And FWIW (again!), the Catholic church was usually much quicker to adopt scientific discoveries and read biblical passages in light of them than pretty much any other branch of Christianity, mainly because thy themselves were sponsoring and in some cases doing the actual science to begin with.

  • Elemenope

    Any criticism of the Pope must be wrong since He is infallible.

    Even under Catholic doctrine, the Pope is not infallible except under extremely exacting circumstances, which occur very rarely. (In fact, since the doctrine was formulated, at Vatican I in 1870, it’s happened exactly once).

    This might help you out a bit.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    “Not for nothing, but I have never met a Jesuit who couldn’t use his brains.”

    mark: It still dosent change the fact that every argument for religion is based spherical logic. Using a document ( the bible or any other divine holy book) to prove itself as true is not an example human brain power.

  • Elemenope

    markbey –

    Many of the tools of thought (logic, induction, inference, etc.) that we use and depend on were originally invented and refined for the purpose of theological apologetics. Only later were they put to other purposes. There’s a reason why a list of great philosophers from about 300-1850 AD reads almost name for name like a list of great theologians.

    Say what you will about circular logic and theology, and I could say plenty (very little of it pleasant), but it is a singular fact that taking a crack at the questions and texts from religion was the first (and remains one of the most fruitful) challenge for human reason.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @elemenope
    Actually, the Pope is always infallible in any pronouncements he makes to the Church. Hence the silliness of the Catholic position on homosexuality (Which may be summed up as “Being homosexual is okay, because God in His wisdom made you gay, but if you have gay sex you’re damned”).

    One Pope pronounced on the morality of homosexuality and declared it anaethma. A later Pope (possibly John Paul II, but I’m not certain) reasoned the first part of the modern position.

    Ironically the definition is circular: A Pope is infallible in all that he officially pronounces to the Church. However, in order for infallibility to apply, the Church must consider the pronouncement binding and express the desire and belief that all Catholics should consider the pronouncement binding (thus official from the Pope and hence infallible).

  • http://newref.blogspot.com James

    But if Christians really believed there is everlasting paradise awaiting after they die, would they have so much fear of dying? Why wear seatbelts? Why hide behind bullet proof glass? Could it be there’s a bit doubt about that whole “eternal paradise” thing? Hmmm.

  • Ty

    “and remains one of the most fruitful”

    Gonna have to explain that one to me.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @James:
    That’s why so many good fundies support Israel and encourage Middle East conflict. Because it doesn’t matter if it leads to a multistate nuclear conflict, Israel has to regain pre-eminence and then get smashed in order for Christ to come again.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html

    The Huffpo has its good and bad points, but Blumenthal’s a solid journalist.

  • Elemenope

    Gonna have to explain that one to me.

    It’s pretty simple. I’d say that the *most* fruitful in modern times has been direct, rigorous interrogation of physical reality (i.e. SCIENCE!), but lagging just behind that in fruitfulness is the continuing urge to probe questions of existential import.

    By fruitful I mean both yielding effective ways of thinking, as well as yielding new tools for improving human life. The fruits of science are given to us as obvious, because we are a science-oriented culture; empiricism, the scientific methods, mathematics are obvious effective ways of thinking that have come from or developed with science. The functional fruits are technologies, as well as highly developed skill at building conceptual models.

    Religion has likewise spurred growth in logic and philosophy. It has also produced more tangible “tools” such as advances in language for dealing with difficult or highly abstract concepts and provides a common vocabulary for talking about existential experiences, as well as providing a great deal of the advance (and impetus) for thought in the field of Ethics.

    Note that I include criticism of religion within the fruits of religion. Nietzsche is as much a part of the religious legacy as Thomas Aquinas, and the existence of religious thought and models is responsible as much for its fruitful criticisms as it is for its fruitful products. It is the *struggle* with the religious paradigm, and the questions and answers therein, that moves us forward.

  • Jabster

    @Elemenope

    I think the point you sort of missed stating, but maybe you think is obvious, is that ‘thinking’ about what religions says is not the same as agreeing with what religion says. There have been some headlines in the UK newspaper’s this week that Andrew Motion believes that the Bible should be studied in school – if you read the story what it actually states it’s that he believes that religious texts, not just the Bible, should be studied as they give an insight into English literature is about not that any of the beliefs are true. This to me is basically the same issue in that you don’t have to believe in a holy text to recognise that it’s important but this being religion it’s always going to be a difficult one to judge.

  • Pingback: Christians Don’t Believe In Miracles « Unreasonable Faith

  • Elemenope

    @Jabster

    Totally agree. I do think it gets a little sticky when talking about teaching religion as an academic subject versus teaching it as a lived experience…it’s awfully hard to teach on effectively without some notion of the other, but the second is for very good reasons not allowed in (publicly-funded) schools, and perhaps most importantly, it is nearly impossible from the outside to disentangle the two.

    Imagine if someone were teaching the Bible (or any other scripture) as literature, and some student were to have a conversion experience while reading it. Parents freak, program dead. All it takes is one, and people’s (over)reaction takes care of the rest.

    For similar reasons while if I had my druthers I’d want philosophy taught in public schools, the problem of attempting to teach philosophy without every parent under the sun wanting to kill you for one lesson or another would perhaps be insurmountable. It’s easier in college ’cause you don’t take your homework home for mom and dad (unless you want to).

  • boomSLANG

    Elyse: “If the Pope is the representative of Christ’s teachings, shouldn’t he not worry if he lives or dies by not having bulletproof glass?”

    Agreed…if everything is ultimately “God’s Will”, whether the result is something desirable to the believer, or not, then it seems to me the believer, in this case the Pope, would welcome whatever comes his way, including a bullet “from God”.

  • Steve Atone

    ‘Any criticism of the Pope must be wrong since He is infallible.’

    Ack … I’m about to defend the Pope … no.

    According to Catholic teaching, he’s only infallible in official church statements about religious doctrine.

    He’s not infallible in everyday life.

  • Ty

    “He’s not infallible in everyday life.”

    Awww, even those popes who were holding orgies in the vatican and having people murdered?!

    Damn, those guys are my favorite.

  • http://www.quantumlearning.pl ianpeatey

    I think you have made a mistake about this picture.

    The Pope’s not protecting himself at all. He’s selling ice cream. I mean, the church needs to make an honest income after all!

  • marcion

    Well of course the pope doesn’t have faith…he’s Catholic. All he’s got are homo priests and magic tricks involving bread. Only Prots have faith.

  • marcion

    “According to Catholic teaching, he’s only infallible in official church statements about religious doctrine.”

    That is, when he’s speaking ex cathedra (from the chair). Since his doom buggy has a chair, he must be infallible while riding in it.

  • John C

    Doom buggy? Was that a Freudian slip? Did you mean that in some illustrative, telling way like doom?? Or did you just misspell it…dune?

    Anyway, it was kinda funny :)

  • claidheamh mor

    @Gerald gobblecoque: have fun in hell, gais.

    The gobble of “loving” Christians everywhere:

    “You are in for such a big surprise/nasty shock when you die. We have to give up the good stuff in this life, but we’ll get ours (the good stuff) when we die. You bad atheists get the good stuff now, but you will get YOURS (the really really bad stuff) when you die. And it will be FOREVER! And you will finally see I’m right when you get yours, bwaaaaahhaaahaahahaha….”

    I feel the call to give my life to Jesus… I finally heard the word… I finally saw the light… I’m converting to Christianity… this true Christian was such a shining, hate-filled example of the Lord Jesus Christ’s pure hate… I feel it… it’s so powerful… I’m shaking all over… (or is that repressed laughter?)… I’m giving my life to Christ and spreading the word of his hate… this spiteful true Christian has finally made me see the error of my ways… I’m turning Christian…

  • gerald gobblecoque

    deleted me did u???

    • LRA

      well, gobblecock… if you were being a dick, I imagine he did…

      Come back with something substantial to say…

  • Gareth Gobblecoque

    If being gay is a sin, you must be the devil himself.
    Oh, and LRA, it’s spelled Gobblecoque. I don’t make fun of your…..letters…
    Go GOD!

  • Shnike

    I also find the Catholic stance on birth control humorous. “Now kids, God’s will can be thwarted by a thin prophylactic, so be sure not to wrap your willy when you engage in conjugal relations!”

  • Elemenope

    But what flavors would he sell?

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that neither Jesus Blood nor Christ Chex are particularly appetizing as flavors…

    Then, of course he could tap the monks for some reall kickin’ beer. But beer flavored ice cream? [Shudders]

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    What about:

    Rocky Road (to Perdition?)
    Better Be Gone

    and, ironically,

    Banana(s)

  • Elemenope

    Heavenly hash?
    Death by (chocolaty) sin?

    There’s the ever popular fish flavor. The question becomes whether the fish are a metaphor, and they’re really made out of people. [Fishers of men. Eww.]

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    I deleted that comment. I’m pretty sure it was a 10yr old high on Jesus.

  • LRA

    I mean, gobblecock… really? A fan of Southpark it sounds like.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X