Follow up to bloody bus fight. In other news, “Don’t fuck with senior citizens, they might surprise you.”

My new hero:

If this video doesn’t get you, too, something’s wrong with you.

If you missed the original, here’s the video in question.

If you have a T-shirt company, put that quote on a T and get rich!

This one I can’t resist … a Downs actress tells Sarah Palin, you have no sense of humor … parenthetically she says, “Bitch”.

If you know me, you know I love comedy. I find nothing is sacred. That is, nothing sacred is off limits to joke about.

For over three years after I moved here, I worked with local comedians and comedy shows throughout the city. I learned that the best comedy means that a Christian makes fun of Christianity, a Muslim makes fun of Islam, or a Hindu makes fun of anything … I just love to hear a Hindu speak English.

Honk.

Point is, I have heard very clever bits from Christians on Christianity, and it is painfully funny. And these aren’t guys claiming to be a believer to get in a good jab for a joke. These are die-hard, non-drinking, non-smoking, lovers of Jesus.

I remember playing a David Cross bit for a buddy of mine. He was laughing his brains out. But when I turned on a bit about a political figure he had ties to, that wasn’t funny anymore. I don’t understand how people can get upset by “jokes”. If you’re one of these people, put “defibrillator” on your grocery list, because you’re going to need one before the rest of us.

“Family Guy” takes “Nothing is Sacred (Latin: “Nihil sanctum est”) and turns it upside down. It’s a great show. They make fun of everything from atheism to religion, handicapped to healthy, and sex to pedophilia. How much more irreverent can you get? AND they broadcast on FOX’s network channel (Not FOX “News” Petursey, but they’re connected).

Recently, there was a joke directed toward Sarah Palin and Down syndrome. Of course, Palin got her granny panties wadded up and bitched about it. This falls on the recent coat tails of her Dave Letterman bitchapalooza fest.

What’s great about this episode, the girl who played the voice of the Downs girl, spoke up.

Picture me, wagging my fists back and forth shrilly singing out, “How awesome!”

Meet Andrea Fay Friedman (right). She played the voice of the Downs girl on the show. She’s a 39 year old actress, and she fully supports the Family Guy staff.

In fact, she wrote this in an email (Friedman can type and use a computer!):

I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line “I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska” was very funny. I think the word is “sarcasm.”

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life.

What pisses me off is that people like Sarah Palin will use her absence of humor to raise Trig under that dense (Yeshua) fog. Meanwhile, Palin will be a disservice to Trig, because instead of growing up to meet the challenges of Downs, his mother is probably going to exacerbate the handicap through needless over mothering.

She will further handicap a handicap.

Meanwhile, Friedman loves skiing, traveling, speaking for the cause of awareness. She sounds like a really cool woman. Palin again proves she’s the face palm master.

Go read the rest of the article here.

In the meantime, Andrea Friedman is my new hero.

She’s the cat’s pajamas.

English classes, prayer requests, atheists and you.

I went to a private Christian high school called Wesleyan for 13 years.

Back in middle school and high school, I loved English classes. I enjoyed school all together, calculus, geometry, art, world and American history, chemistry, biology and — yes — biblical studies were all some of my favorites. At the time, I knew nothing else. How can I lie and say I didn’t enjoy learning about the Bible which was the center of attention in that culture.

Let me also preface by saying all the non-biblical subjects were taught from a “biblical” perspective. I learned a little bit of evolution in science, but it barely scratched the surface. And it was presented with “We don’t believe this, but…” caveats (Teach the controversy). There was always something a little suspect about only getting the biblical perspective. When I graduated high school, I discovered just how naive and sheltered I’d been for 13 years of study. Shit, I’m still finding out how naive and sheltered I was.

Oh the pain. Oh the torture. Woe is me.

Wiki Answers: How do accounts of the resurrection in Matthew Mark Luke and John differ?

Answer here or read below:

Mark

Mark’s Gospel was the first canonical gospel, written approximately 70 CE. The earliest known manuscripts of Mark do not even have a resurrection narrative, beyond the young man telling the women that Jesus had risen. Later texts included resurrection appearances which bring this gospel more or less into line with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, the answer in respect to Mark must be that the earliest known gospel text did not mention the women speaking to the risen Jesus.

Matthew

Matthew’s Gospel reports an earthquake that rolled away the stone. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The women saw Jesus later while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. Finally, the eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus.

Luke

In Luke’s Gospel, the stone had already been moved when a group of women arrived, but there is no mention of an earthquake. This time, two men appeared to the women in shining garments, apparently angels. Later, Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (possibly) Peter, but they did not recognise him, even after conversing with him, inviting him home, and eating dinner with him. They suddenly realised that he was Jesus, (“their eyes were opened and they knew him”) but then he vanished out of their sight. At his next appearance, Jesus went to some lengths to assure them that he really was Jesus, showing the disciples his wounds, and finally being drawn up into heaven. All this happened in and near Jerusalem, not in Galilee.

John

In John’s Gospel, only Mary Magdalene is mentioned going to the sepulchre and saw the stone moved. Then came ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ and Peter, who went in and saw only the linen clothes and the napkin. Next ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ went in, saw and believed. Only after they left did Mary see two angels in the sepulchre. Mary afterwards saw Jesus standing and knew not that it was Jesus, supposing that he was the gardener. The next two appearances are quite similar to a single appearance in Luke’s Gospel except, as Elaine Pagels points out in Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), the account seems intended to disadvantage the disciple Thomas, by causing him to miss the blessing of the Holy Spirit and then appear to doubt that it was Jesus that he saw [Pagels identifies a thread of anti-Thomas narrative in John’s Gospel.]. Finally, Jesus appeared to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberius but, although ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ quickly identified him, none of them dared to ask who he was, “knowing that it was the Lord.”

D’Souza vs Loftus Debate Audio Available Now, in other news, surprise! You’ve been GWB’d

For those of you who are interested, the audio for the D’Souza vs. Loftus debate is now online here. I’ve enjoyed the comments so far on Loftus’ blog “Debunking Christianity.” You can read the comments here. I particularly enjoyed this response.

Who knows if and when the video will become available. I wouldn’t watch it if it were.

My original assessment was that Loftus lost the debate. I was embarrassed to have invested time and money into his disappointing performance. It would be like going to see your favorite band live, and not only did they not play a song you liked, their instruments were all out of tune.

And when the fans all complained that the band sucked, the band blamed everyone and everything except themselves.

What a douchebaggy thing to do. I mean, fans can be forgiving if you give them a chance. I could have been forgiving if he would have acted like a responsible leader. Leadership doesn’t act like George W. Bush if he wanted to save any ounce of personal integrity or retain a decent amount of allegiance.

Instead of embracing his fans, Loftus pushed guys like me away. What a myope. After I saw that he called one of my new AAF friends “ignorant” for criticising Loftus, I thought I was mildly finished with a possibility of forgiveness. I mean, in “Dumb and Dumber” Jim Carrey had a one in a million chance, right?

But seeing Loftus respond to a kid’s blog and telling the poor chump that his blog doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, because its Alexa ratings are low, that’s really all I had to see to find out that Loftus is a lousy, run-of-the-mill asshole.

I mean, all that poor blogger wants to do is become the next Noam Chomsky and construct semi academic sentences with lofty syntax. What should old Loftus care? Leave the poor bugger alone.

If you’re taking me seriously right now, pinch your tuchas for me. Unless you’re my wife, you’re probably too far away for me honk your tonk myself.

You know, I decided to play for the atheist team because I saw quality within. For the most part, I find it here. There’s one thing for certain, Loftus is not quality.

Hey, Loftus, so you don’t need to look up my Alexa rating, I’ll spoil the well for you, it’s 136,561 in the US and a mind blowing 1,073,123 internationally.

Transcribing monks say the darndest things

Islam and Women, in other news, religious books are not sources for moral superiority

Posted by an anti-theist named Molz Khan at this site.

Here’s the first paragraph:

For the majority of my life I was a Muslim, a child of Muslim parents, a nephew of Muslim aunts and uncles, and so on. Most of the people I spent my childhood were Muslims, and every single one of them repeated a phrase almost verbatim. “Islam is the only religion that gives respect and honor to women.” I personally never really gave the statement much thought, rather, I just accepted it on surface value. So whenever someone from the outside brought up the treatment of women in Islamic cultures, I repeated this mantra like a statement of unquestionable fact. It was not until I looked upon Islam from the outside that I truly grasped just how false that statement was. Islam does not give respect to women, it does the exact opposite. It suppresses and subjugates them. It keeps them down purposely, as Islam truly is a man-made religion. It deprives women of their beauty with veils, their minds with dogma, and their freedom with the law.

Go read the rest here.

After you read how awful the Koran is, compare and contrast to the Hebrew bible. Also compare to what’s known as the “new” testament.

There’s little difference between any of them.