Sunday's episode was cheap! Its so easy to make fun of religion, it a low form of comedy. Sunday's episode was funny. I've been watching the Simpsons since the day they first appeared on Tracy Ullman's show. I tried to keep an open mind, and there was some funny stuff in the episode. However by the end I started getting a little bit offended. I mean enough is enough with the Christianity jokes. Its such an easy way to get laughs. I was never offended before by the Simpsons and I just wish they had toned a few of Sunday's jokes down. On a positive note, Sunday's show really had a nice flow. Each scene moved nicely to the next. tHere was a good progression that has been lacking in the Simpsons for a few years. Perhaps they tried harder because they knew it was the Christmas special and would be shown year after year? It was also really funny despite how I feel and will probably become a classic.
The Simpsons and religion!!
They werent making fun of Christianity,,they were making fun of how the church had gotten comercialized in that episode . Even the preacher was offended by the commercialization if you pay attention.
The show has never made fun of God or faith. What it has made fun of are the surface problems, such as fundamentalism, intolerance, the greediness that is sometimes apparent, the hypocrisy of some, etc. Not that religion doesn't have aspects to be made fun of in the FIRST place... ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Such as......
Off topic, I know
<<>Not that religion doesn't have
Such as......
Off topic, I know>>
How about how they collect money for the "poor" but it really goes to the church and the priest? If I see one more priest driving a Cadillac......
Pffft what a joke. Tell me at least one time you have seen a priest driving a Cadillac. (You imply at least once, probably more)
Where and when?
I think even the most dimwitted individual with an I.Q. of 190 would realize that even if a priest did drive a Cadillac, the cost of that car in no way compares to the large amounts of money given by the church to the poor. It must be difficult for you to imagine while living in your American paradise, where you have no idea what poor is.
As for the church... yeah, it has bills to pay. Who would go to church in the winter with no heat? Use common sense here.
BlackJet76 wrote:
Priest in a Caddy!! Ha! What are you smoking?!?!? Priests take a vow of poverty, meaning that all the money they earn in outside jobs goes to the church. My aunt, who's a nun, used to work as a college professor(sp?) and every last dime she made went to the convent. You must be thinking of televangelists. Nuns do drive nice cars, but they belong to the convent and are in no way paid for by tithings. They are paid for out of the nuns' salaries.
Drunk and full of pie, Greg Bair wrote:
Katijaikat, I give you your Catholic...
(I smell love in the air :)
The Rack wrote:
I never said *I* was Catholic. My family is.
Drunk and full of pie, Greg Bair wrote:
That's right. You said you were Baha'i, or something.
Such as the fact that many people still subscribe to supersticious nonsense because they're unable to deal with reality.
"John Rivers" wrote in message news:JPTT7.64$[email]...
Whether religion is true or not, religious people are the most secure. They have the most to live for, and are generally more happy than the rest of the population. Tell me, can you honestly say that you LOVE your life?
Now if religion is true or not.. I say, prove to me that it isn't. (Oh, and remember Pascal's wager. Didn't Lisa once quote it?)
Yes, I love my life. And I don't need to devote it to or pray to God daily, weekly, or even once a year. I live for myself, and I enjoy every moment (almost). Religion is not necessary, but it makes inherently INSECURE people SECURE. They are not the most secure as you said. On the contrary, if one has come to grips with the inexistence of God, then one is secure with himself. Anyone less secure will believe in Him. No one can prove whether God does or does not exist, and I am not going to try. There are benefits to religion, but what you said isn't based on any statistics. Where did you get that they're more happy than the rest of the population? Give me references.
what exactly is the basis for this statement?
Kevin
Yes, some of them are so happy when slaughtering non-believers or those not of their denomination. Also, if many are so secure, why does ridiculing their god sometimes generate murderous attacks... that doesn't seem so secure to me.
Obviously they don't love their life, seeing many are willing to espouse nihilism as a form of living, in order to prove themselves to their god.
No, that's plainly not right. It's not up to atheists to prove anything... it's the religious that say there is a god out there, so they are the ones who must produce the evidence to substantiate such a claim.
Graham
Drunk and full of pie, Graham wrote:
Each claim offsets the other. No burden of proof exists for either.
[email] (The Rack) wrote while eating and drinking my leftovers:
Both aren't equally opposite in this argument. The religious say there is something out there, despite showing no clear evidence (actually, no evidence whatsoever)... it's clearly right that they have to prove the existence of something that they believe in, and want us to believe in, too. Atheists don't have a belief structure that's based on something that's not visible or taken as faith, so there is no need for them to prove their assertion that there is no god. If the religious can show me their god, then barring it's some super intelligent alien being from another planet, I'll take their opinion on this matter a bit more seriously. Frankly, in this day and age, people believing in what's basically a very ellaborate fairy story is laughable. If that insults anyone... live with it!
Graham
Drunk and full of pie, Graham wrote:
Not really. What's at stake? Who's forcing whom to believe what?
Your argument doesn't make sense. There is no proof one way, or the other. Neither side can prove their point. The real question is: why try? At the center is something called "faith". Faith is based on things that cannot be proven; that's just its nature. Nobody's forcing anyone to have faith, or not to have faith.
Nobody's trying to change your opinion; at least I'm not. The Christians' Bible says things about faith, and sign-seekers. If there was proof of God, there would be no need for faith at all. The reasons for life (as given by religion) would make no sense--to proove one's self (in the absence of knowledge, in a world where good and evil co-exist) to God.
In the end, faith (or lack of it) is an individual experience.
It's just an opinion; if we got offended by opinions, usenet would be a smoldering cauldron of anger!
;)
I thought it was a smoldering cauldron of anger...that's the only reason I'm here.
Kevin
Drunk and full of pie, Kevin Madden wrote:
On a related note:
They closed "S-E-X C-A-U-L-D-R-O-N" down.
What does religion have to do with loving your life? And what's the point in loving your life if you believe in something we can't possibly know? I think many religions started as some dare to see if you could get people to believe some wacky stuff.
The burden of proof is on the people asserting the existence of something, not the non-existence of something. If you can't positively prove the existence of something, we have to assume that it doesn't exist, until we find something that could say otherwise. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Says who? I think you can also make a point for just the opposite. If you can't prove that something is nonexistant, we have to assume that it does exist, somewhere out there. I think Rack said something along those lines a few posts ago.
Austin
Let's say I'm a guy who started a religion:
When I change the status quo and state that "there is a god," I bring a new claim to the table. Why should anyone just believe me all of a sudden without any proof? And since when has there been any substantial proof of a god in our world today? I'm pretty sure the U.S. justice system has the rule that you have to present positive evidence that say, a defendant DID kill someone, and if there isn't any evidence, he can't really be found guilty. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Drunk and full of pie, Sydney Assbasket wrote:
Religion has been with man since the beginning. Just playing Devil's Advocate here (ching ching ching! beep beep beep!), why should someone born into this world with no belief in religion be allowed to require proof of God? Faith, by its nature, requires belief without proof. It's the great test of Christianity.
In the end, nobody is required to believe. If you don't believe, that doesn't cancel another's belief. Who's right or wrong is immaterial, in light of no evidence one way or the other.
Laws have nothing to do with faith, which is an individual experience. It's one of the biggest reasons why the religious pilgrims moved here from Europe in the first place -- so that no law could be made which governed their faith.
The Rack wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the other guys (the religous ones) believe that the existence of God is a given. They are so taken in by it that it becomes the norm. If I am a religous person, I think that God exists, I don't question it; that's just how it is. If someone wants to have an opposing view, they must provide evidence for it. The other side of the coin - the argument for atheists - has been expressed multiple times in this tread. To clear up, both sides believe that the standard is "There is a god, why should I think otherwise?" and "There isn't a god, why should I think otherwise?" and both say "if not then prove it." so neither argument is superior over the other.
Drunk and full of pie, Amir wrote:
Nobody's arguing that.
That is only because they are TAUGHT this. If my parents taught me that in a far off land there were green monkeys that spoke Gaelic, I would think that was a given. But if you weren't taught that there was a god, is there really any evidence in the world around us that would lead you to believe this? ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Boy, didn't we party when those sourpuss religious zealots left our shores. ;)
Graham
What year is it? 2001 AD. We keep track of time using years based on the birth of Jesus. I'd say that makes religion the status quo, and that saying "there is no God" is changing it.
Austin
I always find it funny how christians think that christianity is the only religion.
Kevin
When did I say it was the only religion? Maybe I just used a bad example. And when you say that there are more than one kind of religion, all you're doing is giving more support to what I said originally (That religion, not lack of religion, is the status quo).
Austin
Because you are using the fact that our dating system is based on the birth of Jesus to prove that religion is the status quo as though all religion involves Jesus and the christian god. Your argument would only be valid to show that Christianity is the status quo and it is not. Religion may or may not be the status quo, but your argument isn't good enough to support whether or not reilgion as a whole is the status quo.
A point I feel must be made: Atheism is not a lack of religion. It is a lack of belief in gods and other supernatural beings. Religious belief does not require a god, one out of three relgions are atheistic in nature. So just because someone doesn't belive in god doesn't mean they are not religous. So even if I accept that religion is the status quo, the fact that I don't believe in god does not necessarily mean I am going against the status quo. Nevertheless there is nothing wrong with going against the status quo, it's called freedom.
I never said that there is no god, I just said that nobody knows there is a god. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Sydney Assbasket wrote:
You are correct, you can't prove a negative.
Kevin
"therevenge" wrote in news:GoqU7.2276$[email]:
It's also been refuted by the show (by Homer, no less) -- "What if we chose the wrong God? Every week we're making him madder and madder."
I know I shouldn't eat thee. But........mmmmmmmmmm Sacrilicious. "Reagen Sulewski" wrote in message news:[email]...
If you want a good book about the simpsons and how it relates to relgion,,pick up the book "The gospel according to the simpsons". Perfect for any religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or,,Miscellaneous.
Drunk and full of pie, Metlhd3138 wrote:
If you'd like to learn more about the band "Grand Funk", consult your local library.
That people absolutely _know_ that there is a god up in the sky.
That people often take the word of a 2000 year old book literally in this day and age. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.