We now have a good list of stuff that we can use against Jesus.
-
Nails.
-
Chariots of Iron.
No wonder there hasn’t been a Second Coming. He’s cowering up there behind Jahweh’s big throne, knowing that we’ve got all that stuff out the wazoo down here.
When will you let go of the idea that J Christ likes his followers to be alive and healthy? Dead ones are much better at fawning at his feet.
4. Figs
5. Blindness (on the first try)
6. Alcoholism (why else would he have tried making water into wine, the poor sod?)
That’s rather the problem. UTIs are disgusting.
And anyway, wimminz wouldn’t get cancer in their wazoos if they didn’t have so much slutty sex.
Yeah, give him crabs.
Glen Davidson
It is worth noting that the “cures” that church claimed were all of people who got proper medical treatment. The mind boggles at the level of logical fallacy, not to mention cruelty. Have these people never lost someone they care about to cancer?
Let me guess: Sili is drunk again and thinks of slutty, slutty sex? :-)
(…Not that there’s anything wrong with slutty, slutty sex. I wouldn’t want to be misunderstood.)
Sili #2
You know, about that wine thing…
I always thought it was a metaphor to explain how the stories Jesus told were more interesting than alcohol. But then again, I thought the whole Bible was pretty much a metaphor.
BUT NOT SOME PEOPLE!
And she likes science fiction?
Slutty sex hadn’t consciously crossed my mind, but aside from that you’re right. The kids are doing a cross-faculty project this week, so I’m largely off the hook.
I have just secured a coupla commissions on Y-gallery, so I guess that counts for slutty.
Some of the comments there are hilarious. One guy claims he’s seen Jesus regrow severed limbs.
Loqi, does the “regrowing severed limbs” thing count if Jesus has to turn you into a newt first to do it?
According to my Catholic instruction, “his meat” should be on the list, by the way.
Depends on whether you get better or not.
Might be a little off topic, but if the ASA ruled it was an inappropriate ad because of it’s statement of authority, why can’t we apply that same logic to other bunk healing services that also claim to cure what ails you? Why aren’t we protecting people more adequately from acupuncture and homeopathy? The ASA even admitted that they found it, “unlikely that people suffering from cancer may forgo conventional medical treatment because of the statement ‘Jesus Heals Cancer.'” Yet ethically they still ruled against it. So why not protect the people really getting suckered out there?
Anyway, I really feel for the families who saw that billboard, especially the kids sick with cancer left wondering why Jesus didn’t love them enough to cure them. That’s such a fucked up message to send to sick little kids. :(
The new billboard, “Jesus heals every Sickness and every Disease,” is sure an improvement. First, they put a reference to the bibbly-babbly-boo book after it, so that’s bound to make it True. Now, instead of just offending people with cancer, they’re offending every sick person, which is pretty much Everybody. Perhaps the catch is that the sickness or disease has to be Initial Cap, otherwise Jessie just ain’t into It.
Beautiful — if you have cancer, it is your fault for not being sufficiently pious.
OK, so I have an idea to beat Lich Jeebus when he comes back: Shotguns firing nails coated with cancer cells (We have the technology!) mounted on Iron chariots!
His meat. Because the pre-cum makes the wounds in his palms sting.
And anyway, wimminz wouldn’t get cancer in their wazoos if they didn’t have so much slutty sex.
Or if they got their vaccines on schedule before starting into their slutty sex phase of life.
Besides, Ms. Daisy Cutter, he’s ALREADY got that problem with premature ejaculation mentioned in Rev. 3:11 (and two other verses.)
David Marjanović@6,
I don’t need to be drunk to think of that!
*************************************************************
I remember reading some time ago that some young children can regrow severed finger tips on their own, no jesus required.This sounds like what the commenter on that article was talking about except he was all “praise chesus” about it.
Jesus is week against nails (made of iron), chariots of iron, blood (which contains iron). He cheated death and has bizarre powers, he seems to want people to praise him nonstop…
Holy crap. Jesus isn’t a zombie OR a lich. He’s one of the Fair Folk!
Oops, what one commenter on that article was talking about
(Reposting because I screwed up the descriptors in my first attempt.)
Jesus is week against nails (made of iron) and chariots of iron. He cannot heal leukemia (cancer of the white blood cells, which are surrounded by red blood cells that contain iron). He cheated death and has bizarre powers, he seems to want people to praise him nonstop…
Holy crap. Jesus isn’t a zombie OR a lich. He’s one of the Fair Folk!
CSB@20,
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
.
A handful of years ago my MIL, a devout Catholic, spent several months in a coma and at death’s door. We were all ready for it to be the end, but she recovered fully, thanks of course to the advanced (expensive) medicine she had access to and the skilled medical staff who diagnosed her, cared for her, and physically rehabilitated her.
Recently I was privileged to watch a conversation between MIL and 2 of her church lady friends about the coma. They all solemnly agreed that the medicine was part of it, but God was definitely the other part.
I somehow managed to avoid headdesking at the Easter table and impaling my frontal lobe on a smashed wineglass stem.
OTOH, couldn’t some organization put up a billboard stating that Jeebus kills with cancer? And every other disease, by the way….
couldn’t some organization put up a billboard stating that Jeebus kills with cancer?
If you look really closely at the billboard as it stands, one could argue that it’s saying just that: Jesus cures cancer, the billboard claims, not Jesus cures people with cancer. That implies that Jesus cures the cancer itself. Which would, of course, kill the patient. That would explain the results of those prayer studies: Jesus heard the prayers and cured people’s cancers: the cancers no longer suffered the debilitating effects of chemotherapy and radiation and prospered until their hosts died.
Well, we can’t exactly tell them to take down the sign because we’re offended. That would make us…hypocritical? BUT, I think a case could be made that they’re offering medical instructions/treatments unlicensed.
potsandowls@27,
Not because we are offended, but because they are making medical claims about the effectiveness of jesus as a cancer cure with no evidence*. They are trying to draw people in to the church to get their money under false pretenses.
*Without proper trials how can we know whether, or at what dose, jesus might be effective?
rrrraaaarggghhhhRAGE QUIT
I recently thought about how someone could initiate the second coming. Take a communion wafer right after it’s been blessed, and harvest the human cells from it (it is supposed to be Jesus’ flesh, right?). Use the cells to create a clone, impregnate some virgin (preferably), and viola! A new Jesus.
Once we get the process down we could clone as many as we want. So tell the Catholic scientists out there they need to get busy. With this process they can scientifically prove transubstantiation and bring about the second coming. It’s a win-win for the Catholic Church!
I wish I lived in a country where you aren’t allowed to make claims you can’t prove in an advertisement.
My favorite detail:
Beliefs of the church are legally distinct from facts!
There’s also amputation. For some reason, the emo slacker fuckface can’t beat that, either.
What, you mean Jesus can’t cure a simple fucking cancer ?
Oh yeah, bring the dead back to life, cure bloody leprosy fuck all, but cancer ? not a bloody chance. Forget it!
when it comes to cancer, surgery, radiation and chemo work sometimes, or at least hold it at bay, but what, Mr Holy fucking son of god can’t do shit for a tumor ? You tit! you worthless greasy-nosed vacuous bastard. Jesus!
(note: there’s no blasphemy law where I live, so you butt-hurt christian fucks can bite me. )
And then:
The new billboard contradicts the first statement, and is clearly a big “fuck you” to anyone who objected to the earlier advert. Lovely.
Strange how the lich’s powers have increased. Back in the day, you had to be physically there, in his presence, to get cured. He traveled around, by donkey, making house calls. If you were sick, you had to hope that Dr Jesus got his ass to your town. Now, though… nobody has seen him for two thousand years, but he can zap all illnesses remotely? Why the change?
A rather disconcerting number of the comments on that piece are somewhat disturbing.
Also, punishment for a statement like “my god can heal your cancer” should be much harsher than for something like “this vitamin will give you energy” or “this creme will make you look 20 years younger”. This is really not about advertising standards. People may die from believing the former, but not the latter.
In the UK it is specific criminal offence to claim to be able to cure cancer unless you are a qualified and registered medical professional. The legislation specifically mentions advertising.
People are prosecuted under the law, and for repeat offenders that can, and sometimes does, mean being sent to prison.
Take a communion wafer right after it’s been blessed, and harvest the human cells from it (it is supposed to be Jesus’ flesh, right?).
Unfortunately, it turns out that the part of his body that he was offering were the sperm cells. This means that not only can’t we make a clone (haploid cells), the Catholics also get to say I told you so with respect to why the priest has to be a male. On the other hand, they’re going to be very embarrassed about what this implies about their ceremonies.
The offence argument is a rubbish one. I agree that no church should be allowed to advertise that they can heal cancer (because they can’t), but claiming sick people will be offended? That’s a stupid argument when Christians say they are offended by the Atheist Bus Campaign, so it’s equally bad when reversed.
@ dianne #39
you mean holey communion is really a game of spunky biscuit? eeuw, gross.
Ray, rude-ass yankee
Compare him with a placebo. Oh, wait…
you mean holey communion is really a game of spunky biscuit? eeuw, gross.
Well, Catholics are very insistent that the priest who is representing Jesus in the ceremony must be male, but don’t require that he have any other qualities that match Jesus (race, age, etc). That implies that it’s something about the male parts. If they don’t want me to interpret it that way, they should either dump the whole “male only” thing or come up with a better explanation.
While I agree that it’s gross, I find this idea somewhat less disturbing than the implied cannibalism that most people interpret communion to be so I may actually be bowdlerizing a bit.
Everybody including Chuck Norris knows Chuck would kick Jesus’s ass, but imagine how conflicted old Chuck would be.
Well I always just thought it was obvious that priests had to be male because the most important thing about Jesus is that he peed standing up! Your theory is grosso-out-o!
There’s no evidence that there was ever even a First Coming.
@ dianne,
So by your theory, Jesus has been coming at every communion (so to speak)? ;-)
Sounds like he’s been taking lessons from Priapus . No wonder the schools for priests are called Seminaries….
That theory also implies that there is something that Jesus can beat, and he must be doing it all the time to keep up with the demand….
epikt@42,
Assuming the churchy types could produce some jesus, we (not me, but real scientists) could totally test to see if it was any different than a placebo in composition and effectiveness! SCIENCE!(/taking this way too seriously)