WARNING!!!! Very, Very BAD Easter Jokes

[seeker007nmss]

Did you hear they Cancelled Easter? They found the body

What is the difference between Jesus on the cross, and a picture of Jesus on the cross? It only takes one nail to hang up the picture.



:sorry: :eek: (told you they were bad)

[mylittledemon]

Oooh, those made me cringe!

[DrummerDeanna]

UGh - bad bad jokes :laugh:

[skcin]

You are soooooooo going to hell for those. :laugh:

[Alison]

Those are very bad. Don't ever forget what Jesus did on that cross.
He had those nails put in his hands and feet for you. Don't forget that.

[WildInTheWind]

:laugh: Bad..yes...F-ing hilarious? Definatly!!!!

[HomerMcvie]

Those are very bad. Don't ever forget what Jesus did on that cross.
He had those nails put in his hands and feet for you. Don't forget that.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sorry: :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Those are very bad. Don't ever forget what Jesus did on that cross.
He had those nails put in his hands and feet for you. Don't forget that.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[amber]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Hello...Jesus? Yeah, Amber here....what's that?....oh, fine, yourself? Oh! Is that today?....bad business.... :distress: .....yes, well....yeah, I wanted to thank you for dying for my sins and all that...it really wasn't necessary...what? yeah...mob mentality, what can you do? okay...yeah, I'll be at the resurrection...alright, take care!"

[dissention]

"Hello...Jesus? Yeah, Amber here....what's that?....oh, fine, yourself? Oh! Is that today?....bad business.... :distress: .....yes, well....yeah, I wanted to thank you for dying for my sins and all that...it really wasn't necessary...what? yeah...mob mentality, what can you do? okay...yeah, I'll be at the resurrection...alright, take care!"

I hope you had fun at the resurrection, dear. I couldn't tear myself away from the babes of Desperate Housewives to attend such a thing. I find it rather disrespectful to ignore the likes of Teri Hatcher and Nicollette Sheridan when they're on my boob tube. :xoxo:

[amber]

I hope you had fun at the resurrection, dear. I couldn't tear myself away from the babes of Desperate Housewives to attend such a thing. I find it rather disrespectful to ignore the likes of Teri Hatcher and Nicollette Sheridan when they're on my boob tube. :xoxo:
Me, too. that was a joke. :D

[BTFLCHLD]

<img src="http://tinypic.com/2dlye0" alt="Image hosted by TinyPic.com">

[amber]

<img src="http://tinypic.com/2dlye0" alt="Image hosted by TinyPic.com">
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[heyjupiter678]

Those are very bad. Don't ever forget what Jesus did on that cross.
He had those nails put in his hands and feet for you. Don't forget that. :rolleyes: Why did you click on the thread? Just to preach?

[Alison]

You can call it preaching if you like. You guys have no trouble preaching your beliefs and your views. Funny how someone brings up something about Jesus, something He did, and some how that becomes taboo. I see a double standard here.

[HomerMcvie]

As I see it, this is not a religious site(minus some Chiffon worshippers :lol: ).
Freedom of religion, also means freedom FROM religion.
And this ain't billygraham.com. :rolleyes:

[heyjupiter678]

You can call it preaching if you like. You guys have no trouble preaching your beliefs and your views. Funny how someone brings up something about Jesus, something He did, and some how that becomes taboo. I see a double standard here. You can talk about whatever you want. I just think it's a bit rude that you clicked on the thread, knowing it would probably offend you, and proceeded to preach to the poster about what Jesus supposedly did for him. What if he's not a Christian? :shrug:

[madformac]

Funny how someone brings up something about Jesus, something He did, and some how that becomes taboo. I see a double standard here.


OK,

I don't get into heavy dialogue usually but I'm going to here, so anybody, Christian or not that is easily offended you have been warned....... If not read on...




Firstly let me say this isn't merely directed at Christians. If you follow a faith (A term to describe something you choose to believe in without any fact or evidence of it's existence) then this bit is for you.. I will however use Christianity as a prime example as it's so very popular, especially in the USA.

I could follow a faith that said flying pink elephants dressed in amber's pyjamas used to rule the earth but an intelligent person would laugh at my claims wouldn't they?.. Where's the evidence?

What evidence do you have to support your claims?

The Shroud Of Turin was carbon dated and found to be a fake but this is not heavily broadcast. Did you, or anybody you know personally know Jesus Christ? Are there any original documents relating to this person? The Bible? Who wrote it? Nobody seems to know...It's only 2000 years ago so surely there must be something? No? Even the Egyptians from upto 3000 years earlier, 5000 years ago, are well documented....

This next bit is at Christianity however.. Jesus Christ? All that is known is this guy was a son of a carpenter it seems. Hebrew? Well some say so, the Aramaic language supposedly used by Jesus and his desciples is on the verge of extinction.. The only people that still utter the same words are the Assyrians of Iraq.. Oh yes Iraq, that little country full of oil that Christian Bush would like a slice of... Funny world isn't it..

In my humble opinion all "faiths" are put in place to control the mass populations of this world and to direct them into war when another faith hinders their way of life.. Individual thought is not nurtured. To actually stop and think, well hang on, I believe in this, but that has happened
and this says that can't happen... :shocked:

I'm not questioning life after death or anything of the such, I just find it hard to comprehend how people can take such a narrow view of life with their faiths. How dare someone judge another human being by their religon or lack of it? Muslims call Christians, Christians call Muslims, everybody has a go at the Catholics.. I mean what the f**k is going on with the world? There is no "right" religon, you are born, you live, you die. If there is an afterlife it's a bonus. Don't help somebody or hinder somebody in life because of their choices in religon. Do it because they are a person that needs help. Otherwise we will all drown in our own bull****.

Humans existed before Christianity, before Islam, whatever... Give it long enough, a few thousands years, maybe just a few hundred and these religions will be an out of date concept... Keep an open mind, even if you follow a faith, don't believe in everything you are told, because the people telling you often have more to gain than you do.

Thanks for reading, I hope you take something positive from it... Otherwise feel free to attack me below....

:wavey:

[xdreamsunwindx]

I already know I'm going to hell, so I'm just going to read these jokes, giggle, and be merry. Ain't nothin' that can save me.

[tynan88]

Awww come on a joke is a joke, don't read too far in to it, I believe in God and Jesus, and I respect you if you don't but I EXPECT you to respect me for believing.

I find these quite amusing (if you have more please share lol) but they are just jokes, they aren't some serious commentary, if they offend you don't read them, they are totally blasphemous to me but they are also a joke and I can take that.

Just RESPECT for each others beliefs and sensitivities is what is needed.

[dissention]

You can call it preaching if you like. You guys have no trouble preaching your beliefs and your views. Funny how someone brings up something about Jesus, something He did, and some how that becomes taboo. I see a double standard here.

I don't. Most everything that is presented on here by those with differing viewpoints regarding Jesus, God, and religion are presented as opinions. For you to come in here and tell us all that Jesus died for us as if it were a fact and that we shouldn't forget it is not only what I consider to be preaching, but yet another example of someone shoving their religious views down the throats of others.

[xdreamsunwindx]

I don't. Most everything that is presented on here by those with differing viewpoints regarding Jesus, God, and religion are presented as opinions. For you to come in here and tell us all that Jesus died for us as if it were a fact and that we shouldn't forget it is not only what I consider to be preaching, but yet another example of someone shoving their religious views down the throats of others.

Exactly. How do we know that the bible is full of actual facts? To some, it's factual, to others, it's a load of bull. Personally, I believe in god, but frequently question my beliefs. I know there's something , but I don't know what. Do I shove that view down anyone's throats? No, because I hate when people do that to me.

[madformac]

Here's an interesting article from BBC News this weekend...


In his weekly opinion column, Brian Walden considers the gap between science and religion - and what this might mean for the future of humankind.

Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, wrote something recently that chilled me to the bone.

Sir Martin is the winner of the Michael Faraday Prize awarded annually by the Royal Society for excellence in communicating scientific ideas in lay terms. In my case he did almost too good a job.

He pointed out that though the idea of evolution is well-known, the vast potential for further evolution isn't yet part of our common culture. He then gave an example. He said: "It will not be humans who witness the demise of the Sun six billion years hence; it will be entities as different from us as we are from bacteria."
It may well be that this vision of the future leaves you unmoved. After all, six billion years is an almost unimaginable length of time. On top of that, the death of the Sun isn't going to be a jolly business and I suppose that if we're able to summon up any feeling on the matter it ought to be gratitude that there aren't going to be any humans around to suffer when it happens.
These seem sensible arguments and ought to console me - but they don't. This is Easter and I can't help contrasting the Christian promise of my youth with what science expects to happen.

There's a long established British tradition that in general conversation religion isn't discussed. The great Whig essayist, Joseph Addison, writing in the early 18th Century said: "We have in England a particular bashfulness in every thing that regards religion." That was in an age when belief in God was well-nigh universal. If it wasn't thought to be tactful then, it must be far worse now, in a secular age when Christian belief has declined and other religions are widely practiced.
But it's for that very reason that I think we ought to talk to each other more about the central mystery of life. Widespread agnosticism and the place in society of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism ought to mean that the climate of opinion is tolerant. Nor do we need to be expert to discuss science and religion, providing we have the humility to learn.

Like many others, I eventually accepted the scientific explanation of the origin and destiny of mankind. But, also like many others, I have no hostility to religion and, in particular, no contempt for Christian faith; quite the contrary. Indeed, at Easter, I confess plainly that I miss the consolations of Christianity.

I had a Pakistani friend, who died after a long illness. As he weakened physically, the subject he most wanted to discuss was the reconciliation of Islam and science. After a time, worried that he might be distressed, I said, very foolishly, that perhaps he could be at peace because Islam involved faith and he was a believer, whereas science operated in a different dimension collecting data, experimenting and seeking to confirm knowledge.

This distinction made him angry. "Have you the slightest idea how close we are to the end of humanity?" he asked. "I'm a scientist and I'm afraid. Only from the morality inside us can we learn restraint and that morality must come from religion."

I admit I thought he was exaggerating, but I listened and went away and consulted one of the works he'd suggested. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover exactly what my friend was talking about. It wasn't possible nuclear accident, or climate change, but the hypothetical threat posed by technological advances in genetics, robotics and nanotechnology. Genetics; in that we might intentionally or accidentally create a plague; robotics, where we shall be able to download human consciousness into machines and nanotechnology where a nano-machine might turn the biosphere into dust in a matter of days.

Having heard a fair amount of doom-mongering in my time I'm resistant to it and disinclined to believe that the worst will happen. Nevertheless, lacking the scientific knowledge to judge whether there was a real threat, I asked some of those who did know.

They were amused by my ignorance, but confirmed that without proper constraints the technology is a distant threat. Then somebody told me that not only was I not up to speed scientifically, but that some philosophers, well aware of the scientific facts, were discussing their moral implications. So nothing that I'm saying has the least originality, but neither is it freakish.

A growing number of people believe that we need a fresh dialogue between science and religion. I mean religion in its widest sense - a belief in the value of human life. Apparently the direction of scientific progress means that we have to make moral judgements about what's permissible and what isn't. We need a moral consensus.

Most emphatically, I don't mean that we need to create a sort of blancmange morality that wobbles about, containing a bit of God, a bit of physics, a dash of Catholicism plus a smattering of Buddhism and a few sprigs of well-meaning atheism. That kind of ethical coalition wouldn't survive, and we need something that will. What we all need is to acknowledge our interdependency.
The hostility between science and religion stemmed from the 18th Century Enlightenment when science was forced to contradict some of the assertions of the Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church about the history of humanity.

Political liberals had their own quarrel with the Catholic Church, regarding it as a reactionary influence in politics and wanting it separated from a secular state. So the liberals joined the argument on the side of science and we got what became the familiar division of liberal thought and science against religion, though naturally individual liberals and scientists were sometimes believers.

This classic alliance between science and liberal thought in which the opinions of both are mutually reinforced, or the classic opposition between religion and scientific progress no longer operates across the board.

Indeed the present abortion quarrel in Britain is a striking example of a new pattern. Professor Stuart Campbell took photographs of foetuses at between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation and he admits that it never entered his head that the pictures would touch off a national debate. But the photographs were taken by a new technique showing foetuses younger that 24 weeks looking far more developed than had previously been accepted.

The photographs changed some people's minds about late abortion, including Professor Campbell's. He now thinks that "24 weeks if the baby is healthy is too late". The wider significance of this episode is that the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, finds that science has done something which helps the Church and not necessarily liberal opinion.

Of course Professor Campbell doesn't share the Church's view on abortion. He supports abortion, but not as late as 24 weeks, pointing out that "science has moved on". So has the relationship between science and religion in my opinion. It would be sloppy thinking to claim there are no tensions and ridiculous to suppose that a common agreement can be arrived at.

There can be no agreement, but there can be tolerance. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, leading a secular party in an increasingly secular society, on Tuesday asked Britain's churches to play a bigger role in national life.

Not just Tony Blair, but many contemporary politicians, want society to get what help it can from both science and religion.

Now, in a spirit of tolerance can I do justice to the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, who alarmed me by predicting a future species as superior to humans as we are to bacteria? Well Sir Martin has a dedication to humanity and shares Albert Einstein's view that we need a perspective that's global, humanistic and long term. He can't be expected to share the scientifically illiterate prejudices of somebody like me.

Anyway Sir Martin doesn't rule out a place for humanity. He thinks spaceships launched from Earth might spawn new oases of life elsewhere. You see the interdependent, tolerant world doesn't have to be intellectually dull.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4387563.stm

[dissention]

Exactly. How do we know that the bible is full of actual facts? To some, it's factual, to others, it's a load of bull. Personally, I believe in god, but frequently question my beliefs. I know there's something , but I don't know what. Do I shove that view down anyone's throats? No, because I hate when people do that to me.

Have you ever read any of Father Robert Drinan's books or essays? He's quite an original. He was a congressman here in Mass. for over a decade and was really popular because he was vehemently anti-war, vehemently pro-choice, and was the first one to call for Nixon's impeachment. Anyway, his big thing is that American Cantholic's should have the right to worship and have whatever beliefs they choose, but that they should be forbidden from imposing any of those beliefs on the country, laws, and government. I'm not religious, but he's a great man and one few people to make much sense, you should check him out. He was on Meet the Press yesterday talking about Terri Schiavo and was the only one to make any sense after that odious windbag Lieberman proved once again that he's a Republican in Democrat's clothing by saying that Congress did the right thing by stepping into the Schiavo case. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

He pointed out that though the idea of evolution is well-known, the vast potential for further evolution isn't yet part of our common culture. He then gave an example. He said: "It will not be humans who witness the demise of the Sun six billion years hence; it will be entities as different from us as we are from bacteria."

That is chilling. But try saying that to a creationist and they'd call you evil. :laugh:

[madformac]

That is chilling. But try saying that to a creationist and they'd call you evil. :laugh:

Yeah.. :laugh: Six billion years from now, far evolved creatures walk the earth and still Lindsey hasn't put his solo album out.... :shocked:

[madformac]

Exactly. How do we know that the bible is full of actual facts? To some, it's factual, to others, it's a load of bull. Personally, I believe in god, but frequently question my beliefs. I know there's something , but I don't know what. Do I shove that view down anyone's throats? No, because I hate when people do that to me.

Nobody knows anything definitive about the Bible. In my view it's a collection of tales by various authors, sort of like ancient J.R.R.Tolkien, George Lucas etc all with gripping tales of proclaimed wisdom and doom.

I don't have a problem with religions at all, doesn't make somebody a good or bad individual because of it, I have my beliefs, some based on experience, others from what I interpret from various religions. I have basically cherry picked aspects I feel have substance to me and not what I'm told to believe.

Now as dissention pointed out, there's a difference between your personal opinion and forcing your view. If somebody wishes to come to my door when I'm having dinner, rings the doorbell and after I answer they begin trying to convert me to their religious thinking, I will kindly ask them to go away and if I wanted to know more about their faith I would find and contact them myself, for them to come to my home and give thier viewpoint to me is ramming it down my throat, I didn't ask for it.. If they ignore my request (which is usually the case) I will close the door on them.

Jehovahs Witnesses... Billy Connolly said a while back, if they come to the door, ask from behind the door.. "Are you a Jehovahs Witness?" they will go "erm.."... "Come on, are you a Jehovahs Witness? it's an easy question" so they reply "well, yes"..... So you say "OK, I'm standing behind the door, naked, with an erection and in ten seconds I'm going to open the door..... 10... 9... 8.. 7.." All you hear are footsteps running away down the drive.... :laugh: