Comments on: Jesus Passes the Waterproof Test

By: Gordon Cheyne

Gordon Cheyne — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:30:08 +0000

Looks like a bloke with a beard.
So what?
Why should it be Jesus? Why not Ezekiel? Or Fred Smith?

By: Susan Gerbic

Susan Gerbic — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:13:39 +0000

Wow what a nice family photo!

Personally I don’t have a problem with parents that choose to have big families like this. I’m sure they are loved and totally understand what they are getting into. The older children end up taking on most of the burden of raising their siblings. Usually one older child bonds to a younger one and they become “little parents”. I have a Christian customer that has 9 children, 4 are adopted from other countries, and they seem to be a loving healthy family. I totally respect her.

The comments on the purpose for having so many babies is absurb
and untrue. We usually have a reason why we want to have children, and that is their right to do so.

Not sure what all this had to do with Mark’s blog though. Very interesting.

By: AUJT

AUJT — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:17:31 +0000

Quiverfull “Well, if you ever wondered if your vagina had a divine purpose, wonder no more.” —> http://www.feministing.com/archives/006052.html

By: pvl

pvl — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:23:32 +0000

I agree with you there, Tim. Debunking is not simply shouting disagreement or ridicule.

This article was not particularly funny, and not particularly well-done in terms of it’s debunking.

Essentially the article was a snark-vehicle … not wholly bad or offensive, just not all that interesting, either.

yawn

This was my first glimpse of this site — I’ll check in periodically and will hopefully find more sturdy material?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:10:55 +0000

Well I don’t tire of mocking after debunking, I tire of mocking be used as though it WERE debunking.

By: pvl

pvl — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:02:03 +0000

Of course I’m quite certain that hi-jinx of some kind (whether or not financially incented) is “behind” the condensation. And it is fun in a way to watch the machinations of those who simply must “believe” — as they circle about and either marvel at or profit from these kinds of phenomena.

Personally, though, I tire of mocking tones and chortling from the media and blogo-sphere …

JMO

By: Richard Smith

Richard Smith — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:27:14 +0000

The part that bothers me about the article is that Jim Stevens is pretty much being cast as the instigator of the hoax. Could just as likely be a neighbour (or even a stranger just passing through) who felt like making somebody’s life just a little surreal. After all, if someone was daft enough to think that their car had developed the ability to communicate its desire for cleanliness, we wouldn’t necessarily conclude it was they who had scrawled “WASH ME” in the dirt on its window.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:57:19 +0000

Well I was actually alluding to the fact that in Judaism there is no Hell so in order for Jesus to be in Hell he would have to have been genuine, and if he was genuine then obviously he wouldn’t be in Hell. The comment was meant to be funny by virtue of that paradox (as well as the pure outrageousness of the claim).

I do appreciate the Family Guy reference though, I got a good laugh out of that.

By: Susan Gerbic

Susan Gerbic — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:26 +0000

For me it would take someone I know who has a missing leg or arm to regrow one overnight. But then again you might be right it could have been aliens…or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or maybe something I ate.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:16:18 +0000

Ho ho ho, because if the car joins Jesus in Hell, it means Jesus is burning in Hell. Hoooohh.