Behold the face of Jesus! [Archive]

TheAntiLuddite

30th October 2006, 08:31 AM

So, to create the face of a fictional character, they made a composite of three skulls they found and just assumed that Jesus would conform to that? This constitutes "real?"

I haven't read the article yet, but I assume they picked three skulls from the same time period and geographic region of the biblical Jesus. While this isn't the actual face of Jesus (assuming he even existed), it's a much closer likeness I would think than many of the paintings of the man that I've seen hanging in peoples' houses: Jesus as a porcelain-skinned European with nearly blonde hair casting his blue-eyed gaze heavenward. No wonder so many young FundieGirlz (tm) claim Jesus as their one and only, eschewing the advances of their male peers. Not that the new composite is ugly, I just don't think you'd have as many girls collapsing into emotional paroxysms during the speaking-in-tongues section of the church service if this were the picture they associated with their Lord and Savior.

ImaginalDisc

30th October 2006, 08:36 AM

I haven't read the article yet, but I assume they picked three skulls from the same time period and geographic region of the biblical Jesus. While this isn't the actual face of Jesus (assuming he even existed), it's a much closer likeness I would think than many of the paintings of the man that I've seen hanging in peoples' houses: Jesus as a porcelain-skinned European with nearly blonde hair casting his blue-eyed gaze heavenward. No wonder so many young FundieGirlz (tm) claim Jesus as their one and only, eschewing the advances of their male peers. Not that the new composite is ugly, I just don't think you'd have as many girls collapsing into emotional paroxysms during the speaking-in-tongues section of the church service if this were the picture they associated with their Lord and Savior.

Sure, but three is much too low a number for a representetive sample. Would a composite of Dick Cheney, Vin Disel, and Michael Jackson give you a typical American face?

Tricky

30th October 2006, 08:40 AM

Sure, but three is much too low a number for a representetive sample. Would a composite of Dick Cheney, Vin Disel, and Michael Jackson give you a typical American face?
No. You'd have to at least use human samples.

TheAntiLuddite

30th October 2006, 08:41 AM

Sure, but three is much too low a number for a representetive sample. Would a composite of Dick Cheney, Vin Disel, and Michael Jackson give you a typical American face?

Now that sounds like an excellent challenge for any resident Photoshop artists. :D

advancedatheist

30th October 2006, 08:46 AM

He looks like the sort of guy I'd hire as a handyman.

ImaginalDisc

30th October 2006, 08:50 AM

Now that sounds like an excellent challenge for any resident Photoshop artists. :D

It's made somewhat easier by the fact that they're all white, but more difficult because one is a woman.

:p

Piscivore

30th October 2006, 09:13 AM

Is it just me, or is he crosseyed, a little bit?

ImaginalDisc

30th October 2006, 09:18 AM

Is it just me, or is he crosseyed, a little bit?

I don't think he's crosseyed. I think his face is asymetrical.

negativ

30th October 2006, 10:38 AM

http://tinyurl.com/624hd

????

Megalodon

30th October 2006, 10:43 AM

Sure, but three is much too low a number for a representetive sample. Would a composite of Dick Cheney, Vin Disel, and Michael Jackson give you a typical American face?

At least you would have 72 different faces to work with....

kmortis

30th October 2006, 10:51 AM

Sooo, Normal Bob Smith (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/satanssalvation/) isn't even close with his depiction? I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/kmortis/JesusPick.jpg

negativ

30th October 2006, 11:25 AM

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics2/funway/funway.jpg

ChristineR

30th October 2006, 12:59 PM

One thing that shocked me about visiting Germany was that everybody looked like me and my cousins. I think it's easy to forget how ethnically diverse the US is compared to the rest of the world.

Beerina

31st October 2006, 06:44 AM

Is it just me, or is he crosseyed, a little bit?

Looks like he's been in a few tough boxing matches, too.

Darth Rotor

31st October 2006, 07:59 AM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg
:rolleyes: Ah, now I understand why you get so many reports of Jesus' face in Mexico. :rolleyes: Guessing he is presumed to have bad teeth, hence no smile?

Looks like a mug shot, when all is said and done.

DR

bobcarp

31st October 2006, 11:35 AM

that looks more like Mohammad to me...

modecom

6th November 2006, 12:25 AM

Behold, the true face of jesus!!

T'ai Chi

6th November 2006, 04:03 AM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg

And ... ?

fuelair

6th November 2006, 05:17 AM

That's Baldrick, isn't it?

Why yes, yes it is!!!:)

CFLarsen

6th November 2006, 05:25 AM

While this isn't the actual face of Jesus (assuming he even existed), it's a much closer likeness I would think than many of the paintings of the man that I've seen hanging in peoples' houses: Jesus as a porcelain-skinned European with nearly blonde hair casting his blue-eyed gaze heavenward. No wonder so many young FundieGirlz (tm) claim Jesus as their one and only, eschewing the advances of their male peers.

Julia Sweeney tells in her "Letting Go Of God" monologue about how she had the hots for Jesus, when she was still a believer.

It's true! :)

Darth Rotor

6th November 2006, 10:17 AM

Is it just me, or is he crosseyed, a little bit?
I just got the pun. :o :o :o :o

*blush*

Well done. :)

DR

c4ts

7th November 2006, 06:05 PM

Lies! That face looks nothing like the dog's butt!

Huntster

7th November 2006, 06:16 PM

Behold, the true face of jesus!!

That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.

Zygar

7th November 2006, 11:09 PM

That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.

So a noob with 5 posts in his history is representative of the whole forum? Give me a break...

Huntster

7th November 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.
So a noob with 5 posts in his history is representative of the whole forum?

Didn't take long for the apologists to show up.

Yeah, a noob with a 5 post history fits right in here. And an apologist with a 361 post history is the first to make excuses for his sorry ass.

Give me a break...

No. Break yourself, chump.

chris epic

7th November 2006, 11:47 PM

Sure, but three is much too low a number for a representetive sample. Would a composite of Dick Cheney, Vin Disel, and Michael Jackson give you a typical American face?

Well, in 1st century Galilee, significantly smaller and less culturally/racially diverse as America, its a lot easier to get an idea of what a typical Galilean Jew would look like as opposed to a typical American

modecom

8th November 2006, 12:51 AM

That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.

Hang on a moment Huntster, you Christians are the first to jump up and down claiming to see miraculous images of Jesus in windows, Jesus in clouds, Mary on a piece of toast, etc. It’s not my fault he has chosen to show his image on a dogs butt. Take another look at the picture; that dogs definitely going to doggy heaven.

Liken

8th November 2006, 02:01 AM

TheAntiLuddite

8th November 2006, 07:06 AM

Didn't take long for the apologists to show up.
Yeah, a noob with a 5 post history fits right in here. And an apologist with a 361 post history is the first to make excuses for his sorry ass.

No. Break yourself, chump.

Before you get all puffed up with indignant rage, consider the fact that you're on a forum populated by a large number of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. Your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are not sacrosanct here. On this forum, respect for an idea is given in direct proportion to its evidence, and all religions are woefully lacking in that regard. While I do not condone deliberately provoking someone by ridiculing their beliefs, "blasphemy" is the front door to a nightmare landscape of crushing ignorance, medieval torture and unrelenting fear, lit round by flickering human bonfires. Such a word would not exist in a rational society, and here it has no sting.

If you're offended by the original post, or by my own, you are free to find another forum where your religion will be given the respect you believe it deserves.

ponderingturtle

8th November 2006, 07:19 AM

Hang on a moment Huntster, you Christians are the first to jump up and down claiming to see miraculous images of Jesus in windows, Jesus in clouds, Mary on a piece of toast, etc. It’s not my fault he has chosen to show his image on a dogs butt. Take another look at the picture; that dogs definitely going to doggy heaven.

But a dog but is not the sacred location of say a highway overpass. And when will people admit that there was also holy simpsons characters on the over pass as well.

ImaginalDisc

8th November 2006, 07:42 AM

Well, in 1st century Galilee, significantly smaller and less culturally/racially diverse as America, its a lot easier to get an idea of what a typical Galilean Jew would look like as opposed to a typical American

That's fair, but 3 is still a very small sample.
EDIT: Wait, it's not quite as fair as I'd thought, what with Roman soliders from hither and yon all over Israel. One of them could have been Jesus's father, assuming he existed.

Liken

8th November 2006, 08:00 AM

And to what TheAntiLuddite just said: WORD, man. Couldn't agree more.

Liken

Morrigan

8th November 2006, 08:23 AM

Julia Sweeney tells in her "Letting Go Of God" monologue about how she had the hots for Jesus, when she was still a believer.

It's true! :)

The traditional Jesus portrait is ugly. He looks mildly retarded with his soft lamb eyes.

On the other hand, guys who LOOK like Jesus (tall and skinny, long dark hair, small beard or goatee) are HOT. *drools*

chris epic

8th November 2006, 11:17 AM

That's fair, but 3 is still a very small sample.
EDIT: Wait, it's not quite as fair as I'd thought, what with Roman soliders from hither and yon all over Israel. One of them could have been Jesus's father, assuming he existed. Whoa, you just said God was a Roman. Now that's really gonna piss someone off ;)

I think thats an erroneous assumption. As the artist of the composited face explained: it is a generic representation of a "typical" Galilean Semite (half Roman/half Semite would be typical) and from this we could gather an idea of what Jesus may have looked like.

ImaginalDisc

8th November 2006, 11:39 AM

Whoa, you just said God was a Roman. Now that's really gonna piss someone off ;)

I think thats an erroneous assumption. As the artist of the composited face explained: it is a generic representation of a "typical" Galilean Semite (half Roman/half Semite would be typical) and from this we could gather an idea of what Jesus may have looked like.

I'm not a Roman scholar, but I'm pretty sure the Roman goverment's policy with regards to legions in that time period was not to send ethnic Romans into distant territories, but rather to send soldiers recruited in one territory to occupy a different, distant region. I don't know where to look for this information, but I'd expect the Roman soldiers in Israel to have been ethnically galician, gauls, greek, or syrian, rather than ethnically italian.

EDIT: If I'm not mistaken legions X Frentensis, III Galica, VI Ferrata, and XII Fulminata were the Iudea at the time of 6 C.E., or earlier. I'll try to look up the ethnicity of their recruits. III Galicia was pretty clearly Galician. Julius raised them for the civil war in 40 B.C.E. or so.

Oops, that's "III Galicia," not XIII.

HeyLeroy

8th November 2006, 01:03 PM

That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/61974547709e50bba.gif
Before you get all puffed up with indignant rage, consider the fact that you're on a forum populated by a large number of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. Your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are not sacrosanct here. On this forum, respect for an idea is given in direct proportion to its evidence, and all religions are woefully lacking in that regard. While I do not condone deliberately provoking someone by ridiculing their beliefs, "blasphemy" is the front door to a nightmare landscape of crushing ignorance, medieval torture and unrelenting fear, lit round by flickering human bonfires. Such a word would not exist in a rational society, and here it has no sting.

If you're offended by the original post, or by my own, you are free to find another forum where your religion will be given the respect you believe it deserves.
This deserves a nomination.

Whoa, you just said God was a Roman. Now that's really gonna piss someone off ;)

I think thats an erroneous assumption. As the artist of the composited face explained: it is a generic representation of a "typical" Galilean Semite (half Roman/half Semite would be typical) and from this we could gather an idea of what Jesus may have looked like.

http://www.godonthe.net/wasblack.htm.
:solved1

Marc L

8th November 2006, 01:31 PM

That's pretty offensive and insulting.

Actually, I quite agree with you.

I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.

Enh, not so much hatred, as just disrespect, at least in my opinion. On the other hand, it's as much his right to post the picture as it is yours to dislike it.

Marc

ImaginalDisc

8th November 2006, 01:35 PM

Enh, not so much hatred, as just disrespect, at least in my opinion.

As Christians claim that non-christians are going to roast in a pit of firery torment for all eternity for not agreeing with them, I think they win the disrespect contest.

chris epic

8th November 2006, 09:50 PM

(half Roman/half Semite would be typical)I boobood- I meant to write "not typical"

slingblade

8th November 2006, 10:07 PM

That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.

Oh, you'll find no apologist in me. I hate the idea of God, and hate Christianity. I loathe it. I find it nothing more than a vehicle for torture.

Please feel free to release your vitriol on me. It will bother me as much as being railed at by a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

Huntster

8th November 2006, 10:09 PM

I don't see anything wrong with the dogbutt Jesus either. I find it much more offensive that for centuries serious works of Western art have racially profiled Jesus in a way that deliberately conforms his image to suit their own racist ideals about they think a savior should look.

Yet I don't see any Christian protesting the work of Da Vinci, for example, who most certainly knew better. Now that almost everybody knows what he might have actually looked like (see the composite image), hatemongers like Mel Gibson still cast some guy with the first name "Jim" to portray Jesus in a movie. Christians, meanwhile, gobble up this fantasy image ($370,800,000, domestically). Is that insulting to you too, Hunster?

Liken

Nope. You offend me.

If you want a well reasoned theory on the history of how the common perception of the facial appearance of Jesus came about, try something like this (http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-Ian-Wilson/dp/B000CSRJR2/sr=1-4/qid=1163048828/ref=sr_1_4/103-6304928-0940665?ie=UTF8&s=books) instead of playing games with the doggy's ass and casting aspersions.

Huntster

8th November 2006, 10:14 PM

Before you get all puffed up with indignant rage, consider the fact that you're on a forum populated by a large number of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. Your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are not sacrosanct here.

I understand that.

Now you need to understand that the BS toyed with here is not sacrosanct to me.

Fair enough?

On this forum, respect for an idea is given in direct proportion to its evidence, and all religions are woefully lacking in that regard.

You have respect for the photo of a dog's ass?

While I do not condone deliberately provoking someone by ridiculing their beliefs, "blasphemy" is the front door to a nightmare landscape of crushing ignorance, medieval torture and unrelenting fear, lit round by flickering human bonfires. Such a word would not exist in a rational society, and here it has no sting.

I made no mention of blasphemy. I simply wrote that I'd remember that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters.

If you're offended by the original post, or by my own, you are free to find another forum where your religion will be given the respect you believe it deserves.

I sure am.

And I'm also free to comment on the BS I find here.

Huntster

8th November 2006, 10:17 PM

...On the other hand, it's as much his right to post the picture as it is yours to dislike it.

Yup. He/she posted it, and I dislike it.

Funny, it appears that some dislike me disliking it.

Huntster

8th November 2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's pretty offensive and insulting. I'll remember this one when the apologists on this forum deny the hatred for God and Christianity here.
Oh, you'll find no apologist in me. I hate the idea of God, and hate Christianity. I loathe it....

Thank you. This post goes on the list, too.

Anybody else want to get in on the fun, too?

Please feel free to release your vitriol on me. It will bother me as much as being railed at by a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

No vitriol, no pictures of my goat's ass, no nothing. In fact, I thank you for your words.

You're just proving my point........providing evidence.......bolstering my point.

robinson

8th November 2006, 10:43 PM

Now that sounds like an excellent challenge for any resident Photoshop artists. :D

Jesus Christ ....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110534552c1b9f2f92.jpg

slingblade

8th November 2006, 11:58 PM

Thank you. This post goes on the list, too.

Anybody else want to get in on the fun, too?

Oh, my. You have a LIST. Be sure to spell my name properly.

No vitriol, no pictures of my goat's ass, no nothing. In fact, I thank you for your words.

You're just proving my point........providing evidence.......bolstering my point.

I'm only proving your point as it regards me, doofus. I don't speak for anyone else here. I'm probably far more angry and hatefilled towards Christianity than just about anyone here, and don't really care who knows it.

Christianity not only ruined my life, it ruined me as a person. I'm angry, bitter, hateful, resentful, the works. I've been utterly destroyed by it.

Put me on your "list." Like I give two good craps. Hey, put me at the very top, while you're at it.

H3LL

9th November 2006, 02:34 AM

That's pretty offensive and insulting.

But a damp patch (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/underpass3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping658.htm&h=338&w=160&sz=20&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=aJXHBZucrSWaKM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=56&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djesus%2Bon%2Bunderpass%26svnum%3D10%2 6hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG) of sewage on a concrete wall is worthy of worship?

Funny folk these religious types.

I hope the dog's owner cleans up after it has left parables in the street.

.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 07:27 AM

Oh, my. You have a LIST. Be sure to spell my name properly.

Yup. Got it, left-wingblade.

I'm only proving your point as it regards me, doofus. I don't speak for anyone else here. I'm probably far more angry and hatefilled towards Christianity than just about anyone here, and don't really care who knows it.

Then you won't mind me pointing that out when some blind denialist tries to argue that there is nobody here who hates God, dingblade.

Christianity not only ruined my life, it ruined me as a person. I'm angry, bitter, hateful, resentful, the works. I've been utterly destroyed by it.

Sorry, dullblade. I don't know how or why that happened, and I'm also sorry you didn't have the strength or fortune to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back in the game.

Put me on your "list."

You're prominently listed, nose-ringblade.

Like I give two good craps.

Looks to me like you're full of craps.

Hey, put me at the very top, while you're at it.

Done.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's pretty offensive and insulting.
But a damp patch (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/underpass3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping658.htm&h=338&w=160&sz=20&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=aJXHBZucrSWaKM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=56&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djesus%2Bon%2Bunderpass%26svnum%3D10%2 6hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG) of sewage on a concrete wall is worthy of worship?

Apparently it is for some. I'm not among them.

Show me some worshipping a dog's ass.

Funny folk these religious types.

I hope the dog's owner cleans up after it has left parables in the street.

Don't hold your breath.

Skeptic

9th November 2006, 07:34 AM

EDIT: Wait, it's not quite as fair as I'd thought, what with Roman soliders from hither and yon all over Israel. One of them could have been Jesus's father, assuming he existed.

Yer another way in which Monty Python's "Life of Brian" was probably significantly closer to the real history of Jesus's life than anything learned in Catholic school.

Mr Clingford

9th November 2006, 07:40 AM

I have to say that at first I was offended by that dog arse picture but having looked a little more closely (looking closely at a dog's arse? What am I doing) I did then find Jesus in the behind. And not just his face but the whole of him (even if he did appear to be a bit caucasian). It did make me laugh - isn't the hand of God amazing, even touching a dog's bottom and making it holy, or perhaps not.

It is a real picture and not photoshopped?

TheAntiLuddite

9th November 2006, 07:46 AM

Just so there's no out-of-context aspersions in any followup posts from Huntster or anyone else, I'd like to state the following before addressing Huntster's last post:

1. I wholly agree with the concept of freedom of religion, primarily because I disagree with forced adherence to any ideological dogma. However, this doesn't mean I afford any value to a religion that lacks compelling evidence to support its claims.
2. The right to question any idea should be a basic human right. Such a right is a powerful vaccine against false and oppresive doctrines and is a prerequisite for scientific advancement.
3. Ideological "faith" is not a virtue; it is tool designed to obfuscate humanity's quest for empirical rather than revealed or "inspired" (i.e. wishful-thinking) knowledge.

You have respect for the photo of a dog's ass?

I'll assume this is an attempt at humor and you're not really this obtuse. I have respect for the poster's right to post it, regardless of your bruised feelings that he has profaned something "holy".

I made no mention of blasphemy. I simply wrote that I'd remember that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters.

Then you don't have a clear understanding of the word. From webster.com:

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

And I'm also free to comment on the BS I find here.

Indeed you are; however, I would suggest that your definition of BS differs greatly from the majority in this forum. As for your perception that this forum is plagued with "God-haters", the people here do not hate your religion, nor your god, per se; they hate its unsubstantiated claims. There is a difference, albeit slight, that isn't observable to those who can only see through the "eyes of faith".

Huntster

9th November 2006, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I made no mention of blasphemy. I simply wrote that I'd remember that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters.

Then you don't have a clear understanding of the word. From webster.com:

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Again, my original statement was that I'd remember that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters. I also stated that it was offensive. I didn't use the word blasphemy, and if you prefer using it, that's fine.

Again, I'll remember and utilize that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters. If you, like others, don't like it, go pound sand.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And I'm also free to comment on the BS I find here.

Indeed you are; however, I would suggest that your definition of BS differs greatly from the majority in this forum.

So?

As for your perception that this forum is plagued with "God-haters", the people here do not hate your religion, nor your god, per se; they hate its unsubstantiated claims.

Ah, thank you! You've provided my first opportunity to use these "blasphemies" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2081310&postcount=47), and in this very thread, no less:

I hate the idea of God, and hate Christianity. I loathe it.

There is a difference, albeit slight, that isn't observable to those who can only see through the "eyes of faith".

Indeed there is a difference, and attempts to deny the hatred of God and faith will be corrected with the posts provided in this thread.

ponderingturtle

9th November 2006, 08:44 AM

Nope. You offend me.

If you want a well reasoned theory on the history of how the common perception of the facial appearance of Jesus came about, try something like this (http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-Ian-Wilson/dp/B000CSRJR2/sr=1-4/qid=1163048828/ref=sr_1_4/103-6304928-0940665?ie=UTF8&s=books) instead of playing games with the doggy's ass and casting aspersions.

So why are overpasses and divine sewer breakages fine but dogs butts right out?

Darth Rotor

9th November 2006, 08:44 AM

Jesus Christ ....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110534552c1b9f2f92.jpg

I think this composite is a bit off. Why? The beard is neatly trimmed, close to the face. Why would His beard be trimmed a la 19th and 20th century styles, rather than longer, and even a bit shaggy?

DR

ponderingturtle

9th November 2006, 08:47 AM

ponderingturtle

9th November 2006, 08:51 AM

Again, my original statement was that I'd remember that post in my debates with apologists for God-haters. I also stated that it was offensive. I didn't use the word blasphemy, and if you prefer using it, that's fine.

I have not seen anything here that shows people hate god, those [rule8] who he chose to speak for him, that is a different issue. People here hate religion not god, because why waste your time hating something that doesn't exist and not place the blame where it belongs at the feet of religion.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 08:54 AM

So why are overpasses and divine sewer breakages fine but dogs butts right out?

Please review: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2082041&postcount=56)

....I'm not among them.

Mr Clingford

9th November 2006, 08:54 AM

I don't see anything wrong with the dogbutt Jesus either. I find it much more offensive that for centuries serious works of Western art have racially profiled Jesus in a way that deliberately conforms his image to suit their own racist ideals about they think a savior should look.

Yet I don't see any Christian protesting the work of Da Vinci, for example, who most certainly knew better. Now that almost everybody knows what he might have actually looked like (see the composite image), hatemongers like Mel Gibson still cast some guy with the first name "Jim" to portray Jesus in a movie. Christians, meanwhile, gobble up this fantasy image ($370,800,000, domestically). Is that insulting to you too, Hunster?

LikenI have seen images of white, brown, pink, black, yellow etc Jesuses. Often a community draws pictures of Jesus to be like itself, perhaps for greater identification purposes, also the idea that Jesus came for them too.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 09:03 AM

I think this composite is a bit off. Why? The beard is neatly trimmed, close to the face. Why would His beard be trimmed a la 19th and 20th century styles, rather than longer, and even a bit shaggy?

In accordance with what Ian Wilson wrote in the book I cited here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2081314&postcount=48), the beard and hair style are way off. He makes a good case for that. Specifically, he discusses the forked beard and longer streak of hair at the center-rear of the head seen on the Shroud of Turin, and compares it to evidence of hairstyles of the culture and era of Christ.

The book also offers a very convincing explanation of why so many Renaissance images of Christ appear like the image on the Shroud.

TheAntiLuddite

9th November 2006, 10:06 AM

If you're going to attempt to quote me to prove a point (which you have not), at least be honest and quote the entire statement in context:

As for your perception that this forum is plagued with "God-haters", the people here do not hate your religion, nor your god, per se; they hate its unsubstantiated claims. There is a difference, albeit slight, that isn't observable to those who can only see through the "eyes of faith".

To which you replied:

Indeed there is a difference, and attempts to deny the hatred of God and faith will be corrected with the posts provided in this thread.

So, you continue to insist that:

refusal to accept all unsubstantiated claims = hatred of Christianity and Christian god.

This statement confirms that Christianity makes unsubstantiated claims; otherwise, both true-believers (who don't require proof) and skeptics (who do, and who make up the majority of this forum) would be satisfied that the religion's claims are true. Rather than deal with the fact that your religion makes unsubstantiated claims, you are simply angry that critically-thinking individuals deny your religious framework for reality and therefore do not grant it the respect you believe it deserves. Here's a non-religious example:

[Huntster] An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

[JREF Forum] There's no compelling evidence that apples are an effective preventative for the common cold.

[Huntster] *GASP!* This forum is filled with Apple-haters! I'm going to use what you just said in my debates with Apple-hating apologists!

Refusal to accept an unsupported claim and hatred of the claim's subject (assuming it even exists) are not identical. As I've already stated, what the whole issue boils down to is your anger that other people will not validate your religious delusions. What's even funnier is your insistence in branding the whole of JREF as "God-hating". For the sake of the argument, say everyone here did hate your idea of a god. So what? The majority of people here do not incorrectly associate morality and God-worship; hence, your label (which is certainly meant to be negative) is therefore meaningless.

As a matter of fact, why are you even here? You're not going to convert anyone with your angry rhetoric even if your logical arguments made sense, which they don't.

HeyLeroy

9th November 2006, 11:22 AM

Huntster, you're sounding more and more like a "KILL THE INFIDELS!" Muslim than a "turn the other cheek" Christian every day.

Here, sing a song and calm down:

I don't care if it rains or freezes,
S'long as I got my plastic Jesus,
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car,

Comes in colours, pink and pleasant,
Glows in the dark 'cause it's irridescent,
Take it with you when you travel far.

Get yourself a sweet Madonna,
Dressed in rhinestones, sittin' on a
Pedestal of abalone shells,

Goin' ninety, I ain't scary,
As long as I got the Virgin Mary,
Assurin' me that I won't go to Hell,

Goin' ninety, I ain't scary,
As long as I got the Virgin Mary,
Assurin' me that I won't go to Hell.

Marc L

9th November 2006, 12:12 PM

slingblade

9th November 2006, 12:14 PM

Yup. Got it, left-wingblade.
Then you won't mind me pointing that out when some blind denialist tries to argue that there is nobody here who hates God, dingblade.

Sorry, dullblade. I don't know how or why that happened, and I'm also sorry you didn't have the strength or fortune to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back in the game.

You're prominently listed, nose-ringblade.

Looks to me like you're full of craps.

Done.

I bet all the name-calling made you feel good. Glad I could be of service to yet another Christian jerk who likes to torment people in the name of Gawd.

And thank YOU for proving MY point, as well. You serve as a fine example of how cruel the religious can be.

Zygar

9th November 2006, 03:54 PM

Didn't take long for the apologists to show up.

Yeah, a noob with a 5 post history fits right in here. And an apologist with a 361 post history is the first to make excuses for his sorry ass.

Hey. Read my post again. I didn't apologize for anything he said. I also have never "attacked" religious people. Perhaps if you weren't so busy being "better than everyone else" you'd notice that.

No. Break yourself, chump.You, sir, are a pompous ass.

Morrigan

9th November 2006, 06:48 PM

left-wingblade
dingblade
dullblade
nose-ringblade

Is this an example of pious, respectful, Jesus-like behaviour? This petty name-calling?

Then you won't mind me pointing that out when some blind denialist tries to argue that there is nobody here who hates God, dingblade.

She hates the idea of god, and of christianity. She doesn't hate god because she doesn't believe he exists in the first place. (Correct me if I'm wrong, slingblade).

It's like saying one can hate the Emperor from Star Wars because he's so cruel and evil. Yeah, if he were real, we'd probably hate him (unless he could actually answer for his "sins"). But we can't hate what doesn't exist.

Sorry, dullblade. I don't know how or why that happened, and I'm also sorry you didn't have the strength or fortune to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back in the game.

Actually, assuming that she's a former christian, I would say she's a much stronger person now that she broke the shackles that held her chained to a highly damaging dogma.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 06:58 PM

.....She hates the idea of god, and of christianity. She doesn't hate god because she doesn't believe he exists in the first place. (Correct me if I'm wrong, slingblade).

It's like saying one can hate the Emperor from Star Wars because he's so cruel and evil. Yeah, if he were real, we'd probably hate him (unless he could actually answer for his "sins"). But we can't hate what doesn't exist......

The standard, lame excuse here to deny what is clearly true.

Okay. Will you, TheAntiLuddite, and the legions of other apologists admit that there are plenty of people who hate Christianity, or will there be backpedalling and excuses anew?

Regnad Kcin

9th November 2006, 07:11 PM

Show me some worshipping a dog's ass.Now where did I put that video...

slingblade

9th November 2006, 10:04 PM

Okay. Will you, TheAntiLuddite, and the legions of other apologists admit that there are plenty of people who hate Christianity, or will there be backpedalling and excuses anew?

Why on earth would anyone "admit" to something they don't know, on behalf of a group of people who can speak for themselves, should they choose?

You've been here long enough to know that you're committing a handful of fallacies with this line of "reasoning."

I made a statement of opinion. That's not evidence of anything more than one person's opinion. You can't, no matter how hard you try, make it any more than that.

I'm just one person. Small sample, so small as to be ludicrous.

You assume that because I feel a certain way, there surely must be others right here in our group that feel the same. You know what? There might be, but my opinion isn't proof of anyone's feelings but my own.

Now, you have to know that you're just reinforcing how I already feel by calling me childish names and making this argument about me and my numerous flaws, all from your supposedly Christian perspective.

As I said, way to prove my point. Congrats.

@Morrigan, thank you. You got it exactly right. And I appreciate it bunches.

Huntster

9th November 2006, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Will you, TheAntiLuddite, and the legions of other apologists admit that there are plenty of people who hate Christianity, or will there be backpedalling and excuses anew?
Why on earth would anyone "admit" to something they don't know, on behalf of a group of people who can speak for themselves, should they choose?

Yup. There will be backpedalling and excuses anew.

I made a statement of opinion. That's not evidence of anything more than one person's opinion. You can't, no matter how hard you try, make it any more than that.

You're not the only one who has made such an admission.

The list will grow.

I'm just one person. Small sample, so small as to be ludicrous.

Like I wrote, you aren't the only ludicrous one.

TheAntiLuddite

10th November 2006, 04:18 AM

The standard, lame excuse here to deny what is clearly true.

Okay. Will you, TheAntiLuddite, and the legions of other apologists admit that there are plenty of people who hate Christianity, or will there be backpedalling and excuses anew?

Dear Huntster,

Thanks for adding a dash of humor to my morning coffee. While you've addressed nothing in my last post (specifically, why you are here), you continue to play the part of Grand Inquisitor of JREF rather well (just imagine what you could accomplish with an Iron Maiden, a Bishop's Pear and a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum). While I cannot admit that there are legions of people who hate Christianity (as I do not, any more than I hate the Greek mythology or Xenu) your hate-obsession has finally moved me, and I will concede this:

Indeed, there are numerous people who hate cherry-flavored Skittles, and I am one among their multitude. I hate those little Satanic pellets.

Keep tilting at those windmills.

Love,
TheAntiLuddite

Edit: By the way, I'm sure you're busy purging infidels from this and other forums, so there's no need to reply. I'll simply re-read your earlier posts.

Liken

10th November 2006, 05:06 AM

I have seen images of white, brown, pink, black, yellow etc Jesuses. Often a community draws pictures of Jesus to be like itself, perhaps for greater identification purposes, also the idea that Jesus came for them too.

And that makes it okay? How does making somebody seem more like yourself improve his image? Answer: it doesn't, it's just shallow.

To make an analogy, I adored Michael Jordan for most of my childhood, but never envisioned him as as a white player in order to make his contributions to the game seem more palatable to myself, or to think "he's sinking all those buckets just for me!". To do so so with any figure is simply propagandistic, and, again, racist...Shouldn't the [claimed] actions of an individual speak for themselves?

In conclusion, yeah....why can't everyone--Christians and non--just trust the unquestionably authentic and extremely detailed Shroud of Turin to depict his image? It's practically a photograph signed by the man himself. SLAM DUNK!

Liken

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by me
"I have seen images of white, brown, pink, black, yellow etc Jesuses. Often a community draws pictures of Jesus to be like itself, perhaps for greater identification purposes, also the idea that Jesus came for them too."
And that makes it okay? How does making somebody seem more like yourself improve his image? Answer: it doesn't, it's just shallow.

To make an analogy, I adored Michael Jordan for most of my childhood, but never envisioned him as as a white player in order to make his contributions to the game seem more palatable to myself, or to think "he's sinking all those buckets just for me!". To do so so with any figure is simply propagandistic, and, again, racist...Shouldn't the [claimed] actions of an individual speak for themselves?

In conclusion, yeah....why can't everyone--Christians and non--just trust the unquestionably authentic and extremely detailed Shroud of Turin to depict his image? It's practically a photograph signed by the man himself. SLAM DUNK!

LikenI didn't say that it was to improve his image and I don't think that notion has much to do with these representations and isn't anti-Semitism (of course this may have been a reason at times but I don't think often or very muvh).

I don't think it is necessarily racist; take many paintings of bibilical themes which have been portrayed in the artist's own time and locale for the purposes of helping the viewer feel more at one with the painted scene. I don't think it is because the painter has attempted to make the characters more palatable to the viewer.

It makes sense to me that Jesus was olive-skinned and had dark hair and facial hair (of whatever length) because that's what Eastern Mediterranean people look like now.

Liken

10th November 2006, 05:56 AM

Mr_Clingford, I respectfully disagree but thanks for your response.

I'm out of the country (US), but have heard about a film which opened recently and relates to this discussion; "Color of the Cross," by a Haitian director named Jean Claude LaMarre. It portrays Jesus as a black man. I'm not religious but I am interested in the film. Anybody seen it?

Cnn link. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/26/jesus.film/index.html)

Liken

Huntster

10th November 2006, 01:34 PM

....Edit: By the way, I'm sure you're busy purging infidels from this and other forums, so there's no need to reply. I'll simply re-read your earlier posts.

I'm indeed busy, but purging is not in the cards. I'm simply fighting.

Please do re-read my earlier posts.

Enjoy your coffee.

slingblade

10th November 2006, 05:18 PM

Like I wrote, you aren't the only ludicrous one.

I hate you, too.

kmortis

11th November 2006, 08:00 AM

I hate you, too.

Sling,
Do what I did, put the scumbag on ignore. You'll be amazed how much your life will improve.

ChristineR

11th November 2006, 08:10 AM

I think this composite is a bit off. Why? The beard is neatly trimmed, close to the face. Why would His beard be trimmed a la 19th and 20th century styles, rather than longer, and even a bit shaggy?

DR

The Roman fashion at the time was for clean shaven, with depilitation (plucking) being a popular option. You can make a pretty good argument for Jesus having been clean shaven, actually.

I have no idea what the fashion in beards was then.:)

slingblade

11th November 2006, 08:11 AM

Sling,
Do what I did, put the scumbag on ignore. You'll be amazed how much your life will improve.

You're right. Done and done. Thanks.

Huntster

11th November 2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like I wrote, you aren't the only ludicrous one.
I hate you, too.

Thanks for the reference.

Huntster

11th November 2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by kmortis
Sling,
Do what I did, put the scumbag on ignore. You'll be amazed how much your life will improve.
You're right. Done and done. Thanks.

And a great big Thank You from me, as well.

Au revoir.

slingblade

11th November 2006, 10:58 AM

I see you posting, but you can't come in.....

I see you posting....go back where you been.

Hee! :p

Huntster

11th November 2006, 12:11 PM

I see you posting, but you can't come in.....

I see you posting....go back where you been.

Hee! :p

xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

Ausmerican

11th November 2006, 08:29 PM

Huntster

11th November 2006, 09:01 PM

Aaaah Huntsy, just think. With your intolerence and judgmentalness and your admitted history of violence you have eternity in Hell to spend with all of us you despise so much if your religious beliefs are true in the end.

If you're right, that works both ways;

I'll be there to torment you for eternity.

Maybe you ought to work on avoiding the situation altogther by seeking union with God.

modecom

11th November 2006, 10:41 PM

Maybe you ought to work on avoiding the situation altogther by seeking union with God.

Just listen to yourself Huntster. You really think you are better then most of us because of some stupid delusion that you have. For dog sake, it’s about time you grow up and get a life. A meaningful one!!

kmortis

12th November 2006, 05:49 AM

You're right. Done and done. Thanks.

Yer welcome. I had a similar exchange with him a while back. He was the second person I put on ignore. Now, it's like his posts are a bizzaro version of Mad Libs.

To the OP: When I used to be a Christian, I used to snicker at the traditional portrayals of Jeebus. Especially the blond ones. I never really knew what he'd look like, but I was damned sure that he wasn't an WASP. I mean, really...the Angle and Saxons hadn't even become a tribe and Luther was still a goodly number of centuries off.

ImaginalDisc

12th November 2006, 07:01 AM

If you're right, that works both ways;

I'll be there to torment you for eternity.

Maybe you ought to work on avoiding the situation altogther by seeking union with God.

Amazing, you're actually trying to use fear of hell to scar people into agreeing with you in this discussion. You're more reprehensible than the Pope!

Huntster

12th November 2006, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe you ought to work on avoiding the situation altogther by seeking union with God.
Just listen to yourself Huntster. You really think you are better then most of us because of some stupid delusion that you have. For dog sake, it’s about time you grow up and get a life. A meaningful one!!

I'm answering stupid sarcasm with stupid sarcasm.

Get a brain. An operational one.

Huntster

12th November 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you're right, that works both ways;

I'll be there to torment you for eternity.

Maybe you ought to work on avoiding the situation altogther by seeking union with God.
Amazing, you're actually trying to use fear of hell to scar people into agreeing with you in this discussion. You're more reprehensible than the Pope!

And what is it that you're actually trying to do, Einstein?

slingblade

12th November 2006, 10:28 AM

Yer welcome. I had a similar exchange with him a while back. He was the second person I put on ignore. Now, it's like his posts are a bizzaro version of Mad Libs.

Yes, it's much better now. :D

To the OP: When I used to be a Christian, I used to snicker at the traditional portrayals of Jeebus. Especially the blond ones. I never really knew what he'd look like, but I was damned sure that he wasn't an WASP. I mean, really...the Angle and Saxons hadn't even become a tribe and Luther was still a goodly number of centuries off.

I did, too, especially after we were taught that christ was not a handsome man. There was a prophecy about him (Isaiah 52:3?), that he would be homely, so that men would not love him for his face. The portrayals I saw as a child conditioned me to the point that I did not realize for many years that Jesus was Jewish. I thought he was Anglo-Saxon, like Santa. Like me.

ImaginalDisc

13th November 2006, 08:34 AM

And what is it that you're actually trying to do, Einstein?

Discuss the possible ethnic background of Jesus, assuming such a person existed, using the available, and completely cross-referenced and archeologically well supported evidence of Roman Legion recruiting methods.

Maybe you're confused about what I'm doing because I'm using facts to form a conclusion. You use conclusions to form facts.

Huntster

13th November 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And what is it that you're actually trying to do, Einstein?
Discuss the possible ethnic background of Jesus, assuming such a person existed, using the available, and completely cross-referenced and archeologically well supported evidence of Roman Legion recruiting methods.

And your opinion thus far?

Maybe you're confused about what I'm doing because I'm using facts to form a conclusion. You use conclusions to form facts.

And what facts did you use to form that claim?

ImaginalDisc

13th November 2006, 12:46 PM

And your opinion thus far?

Well, let's see. A woman can't convieve a child magically, so if Jesus existed, he must have had a human father. While the Province of Iudea wasn't as ethnically diverse as modern Miami, it probably had people from many different ethnic backgrounds, which is why I question the accuracy of making an "average" composite face to represent Jesus. The very idea that Mary, if she existed, magically got pregnant is absurd. If it doesn't make you laugh, I suggest you pick up a biolgy text book. Jesus, if he existed, had a human father of Isreali, Roman, Galician, or some other ethnic background.

And what facts did you use to form that claim?

Your posts, all five thousand-plus of them.