The New Christian Science Textbook
Textbook sample
pg 19: Here is a picture of a skull of one of the first human beings from nearly 5000 years ago! This wicked man was killed in the Great Flood. Note the deformed skull due to rickets.
Dear visitor, thanks for dropping by. If you enjoyed reading this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. It could could win you some great prizes this month. Thanks for visiting!
Get FREE Norton AntiVirus, provided to you by Google and AskStudent
Is this for real???
This should be illegal.But its funny though XD.
Did you know I love Apples?
(only to be interpret with a QI superior to christian)
Its not real Snake… but considering the grey line between Government and Church and Intelligent design vs Evolution… sadly we might be seeing a science text such as this one.
lol that was pretty funny. well made, thanks for the laugh.
The funny thing is that its impossible to do satire of this religious nonsense. All you have to do is copy what they actually say and believe and its already hilarious enough.
I’d have laughed if it wasn’t so close to the truth…
Blasphemy!! Call the inquisition!
would be funny if you really knew anything at all about the Christian faith….
This is great.However put this together intrinsically understands the value of humour as a weapon.As opposed to the Theists who regularly kill others in the name of their Sky Daddy.
Why is everyone so quick to bash religion? Why is it ok to stereotype people who are religious, but so quick to want to get rid of other stereotypes? Religious people such as myself are being bashed for our beliefs, I understand that this can be humorous, but still.
Michael on January 19th, 2008 10:36 am
lol that was pretty funny. well made, thanks for the laugh.
The funny thing is that its impossible to do satire of this religious nonsense. All you have to do is copy what they actually say and believe and its already hilarious enough.
Comments like this get to me. If people would stop stereotyping people who are religious as the old and ignorant who want everything to remain so strict to the Bible it wouldn’t bother me. The younger believers don’t try to force their beliefs on anyone, I know i don’t. I would just appreciate a little respect every now and then for respecting the fact that you may be atheists, agnostic, non-believer, or whatever you may be. Why is it such a crime to believe in something?
And its not the comic i am offended by, its the people who follow up with comments that just bash religion. But who do i know, I am just an ignorant believer in a higher power, I am sorry for that.
Yes, it is exquisitely easy to bash the religious these days, and for good reason. The religious, (Christians especially) have been (and this is just recently, and just in the US alone) making very serious attempts to change school curricula to reflect their own religious mythology (Dover, PA, intelligent design case), insinuating their doctrine into government (faith-based initiatives office), and marginalizing non-theists (G.H.W. Bush’s “atheists shouldn’t be considered American citizens”) — and that’s just a very short list. Perhaps *you* don’t try to change anyone’s beliefs, but Christianity is based on proselytizing and your church requires it of you. The fundamentalists among you have made you a laughing stock (the universe is 6,000 years old??), when you’re not being outright dangerous (G.W. Bush “God made me president”). And then you moan that you’re a poor victim of stereotyping.
good spoof, but it highlights a profoundly disturbing trend:
christianity is, at its base, an organised political tool that uses the religious basis of the previous founding religion (with enough adjustments to be able to justify their legitimate emergence) to gain popularity by overtaking its founding religion. it bases its power on the influence it exerts on its followers in terms of education provided by it, on the influence it has in terms of culture and lifestyle in societies it is active in and on the political clout that is generated through the number of religious followers who obey the edicts of the church.
that said, ever since the collapse of religious moral influence on individuals after the first world war and modern popular science becoming more and more comprehensive (forcing religious leaders to react, which they did badly), religion has lost its grip on people. beforehand, a divine solution to choices were always offered by way of the local priest. nowadays, with the authority and the benevolent image of priests in severe decline since the late ’40s, previously heavily observant christian countries have moved more towards common atheism and alternatives (islam, buddhism, etc) rather than stay with a religion that is seen as having lost the way and is therefore unable to come up with morally satisfying solutions. then the rise of two religious factions started to affect both the traditional way of doing politics and the traditional way of garnering support for religious groups: the fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives. the fundamentalists were initially a group of hardcore bible-fetishists (aka jesus-freaks) who were appalled by the decline of the church and by why the church came to be in decline in the first place. so they turned to the bible, not for solace, but to be used as the sole moral decision-making tool they’d ever need. over time, they started to garner more and more support amongst people who were either disgusted with the church or with the morally ambiguous choices they were confronted with every day. over time, their movement grew in strength and communal influence, replacing the traditional church with new churches that fulfilled the same requirements but with a less flexible message (core idiosynchracy: the bible is nothing but the truth, a bit like saying the cake exists). then came the neo-cons, a bunch of individual right-wing movements who decided to cooperate and bring about a set of political changes they thought the country needed. in essence, they can be seen as a religious movement because the success they enjoy is based on a core of extremists in high level positions within the neo con hierarchy that are capable of rallying the fanatics together to achieve success and promote the key values that all parties have agreed upon.
christian science is founded on the idea that cigarette companies have used for years when trying to increase their customer base: get ‘em young, get ‘em hooked. in essence, by “teaching” this stuff, they can target the more emotionally or intellectually feeble members of the student body and indoctrinate them into the ways of the fanatic before they even reach high school. that way, they keep increasing the amount of followers and bible-zombies they have by amounts proportionate to the scope of states and countries they target with their propaganda material. christian science is just that; the closest thing fundamentalist and neo con christians have to room 101, where their victims win the battle over themselves and end up loving god.
n.b.:
we are not bible bashers, we are people who, by recognising religion in general as a political tool using indoctrination of both mind and lifestyle as a vector of influence, see that this is something that could either be a publication from a bunch of harmless nutcases, or the closest thing the jesus-freaks have to a mein kampf manifesto and, with the number of people who seem to take this seriously in a country with the heaviest stockpile of nukes in the world, it should be seen as more of the latter simply because the risks are unacceptable. the internet, once again, must ride to the rescue.
This is nonsense. You obviously know nothing of Christian Science. You’re thinking of Evangelical Christians, NOT Christian Scientists.
Know what you’re talking about before bashing certain religions.
Wow, this has to be one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever seen. I understand that I guess this is suppose to be making fun of Christians, but the cartoon is so over the top ignorant that I question whether the author has ever met a real Christian or bases his assumptions on what he sees on TV and what his other atheist friends tell him. He pretty much loses all his credibility in this cartoon and any argument he has by ignorantly labeling Christians as dumb and somehow afraid of facts and science (even though some of the greatest and most intelligent people in history have been Christians or have at least based their lives on the existence of a creator). So in turn being just as ignorant and biased as the people he’s trying to mock. I laughed at this just for the sheer fact that it was just dumb. I mean, if these are the kind of people us Christians have to debate with, wow, shouldn’t be too hard at all. If you have some things that us Christians believe (per the Bible) that you feel is somehow unscientific (i.e., science has actually proven wrong, and when I say science, I mean things that can be tested and proven, which is what science is) then please by all means let us know. Also, just to let you know, atheism is a religion too, just in case you didn’t know.
Jim complains that this is not Christian Science. Right. It’s a goof on a science textbook, specifically, a Christian one. That makes it a Christian science textbook, though not a Christian Science textbook.
dmonkyking says it’s ignorant — the cartoon is ignorant, the writers are ignorant, everything is ignorant. So ignorant, in fact, that dmonkyking says debating the issue is easy. Easy enough that s/he doesn’t bother speaking to any of the issues, except how ignorant it all is. How very scientific.
And besides, atheism is a religion, too, says dmonkyking. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, as some have pointed out. Atheism is, specifically, the absence of belief in a god or gods and, therefore, clearly not a religion since religion is the belief in a god or gods. I would submit that you, too, dmonkyking, are an atheist. I’ll bet you don’t believe in any of the hundreds and hundreds of other gods — Zeus, Hera, Olorun, Quetzalcoatl, Isis, Ra, Odin, Ragnarok and the others. I just believe in one fewer god than you.
hmmm…
so by atheist logic, if we came from non-intelligence, and we and the universe have no purpose, and everything magically went from little animal to big animal, even though the slightest mutation of ANY kind can be deadly, therefore there is no sin, which means there is no right or wrong, which means i can do neither right nor wrong, and therefore i could kill or rape as i please, and it would mean nothing.
“but wait!” you say “there IS such thing as right or wrong!”
well, where did it come from?
“our brains! our brains made it all! its a psychological trend that evolved to benefit the species!”
then wouldn’t it be beneficial to kill a rival who loves your lover, steal food, be ruthless, and do whatever it takes to survive?
murder, cheating, stealing, lying, ruthlessness, etc are oh-so-natural
murder he who cheats with your wife, for he limits thy potential
stay away from those who starve and are diseased, for they may render you ill unto death
so why do dolphins occasionally help humans, why do animals take care of even completely different species, and why do some creatures, especially us, sacrifice so much for so little, ot even gain nothing in return?
it’s illogical.
Let’s take this one point at a time, mooncougar.
“…if we came from non-intelligence, and we and the universe have no purpose, and everything magically went from little animal to big animal…”
I don’t think I ever suggested there was no purpose, that’s what you say. I have no idea about purpose, but, granted, I would be wildly guessing at what such a purpose may be. As to “magically” going from little animal to big animal, evolution posits quite the opposite – no magic, no miracles. Religion uses magic and miracles to write the story, evolution uses science.
“…the slightest mutation of ANY kind can be deadly…”
It certainly can. Many are. Turns out, though, many aren’t. The evidence is there in the genetic record.
“…therefore there is no sin, no right and wrong…”
Whaa?? Not sure how you made that jump, but you do add something that does follow…
“…[right and wrong are] a psychological trend that evolved to benefit the species!”
Makes sense to me. And why not? Lots of things seem to benefit our species in the same way, yet don’t require a god to make us feel them. I’m thinking here of parental love, for example (the commandment was to honor your father and mother, not care for the little ones, which we tend to do quite naturally). You even mention later that the idea is not only a human one, that other species engage in altruistic behavior as well, especially the social animals. Dolphins, as you say, have been known to help humans (and recently were seen helping a pair of stranded whales, too) and others. Even insects – honeybees die when they sting, but they willingly do it to serve the hive. That suggests that subordinating the individual to the group might have its roots very far back indeed, before the evolution of human brain power.
“…then wouldn’t it be beneficial to kill a rival who loves your lover, steal food, be ruthless, and do whatever it takes to survive?”
Yes, it would be beneficial to you, in the short run. And that’s exactly what happens, does it not? Unless, of course, the killing, stealing and ruthlessness doesn’t help you survive, such as when you get caught and jailed or executed for your efforts. But otherwise, yes. As our societies evolve, we try to put limits on that behavior, for the long term betterment of our communities. What we like to call “forming a more perfect union.”
But your point, I think, is to suggest that without a god, humans don’t have a moral sense of right and wrong. Dolphins, as you point out, seem to have developed such a sense without religion, but humans haven’t? Where’s the logic in that?
The illogical part here is implying that religion is responsible for right and wrong. Now that’s scary. That means that you would likely do all those things, the killing, raping, stealing and so on, but your god keeps you from it. Kind of on the thin edge there, aren’t you? So, I agree on one point – please, please, continue your belief, without it you’d apparently run amok.
I was going to say something about being a student who believes in God, but also science, but then I asked myself, what do I know? I am of course in the process of heavily bribing my lecturers and lab markers to give me good enough grades to finish my degree at the UK’s 4th best university, as there is no way a Christian could understand this evil thing that is science! Why, just the sight of a bubble chamber fills me with horror; anyone up for staging a protest at CERN? While we’re there, we can burn effigies of those heretics like Newton and Galileo, and demand the closure of the Vatican Observatory. Of course, those minion’s of Satan *claimed* that the reason for their work was to understand God’s world, but we all know that really it was to prove He wasn’t Out There (I notice a lot of religious people overuse capitals).
The only good christian is one who lives under a rock and refused to listen to anything that might have an explanation.
:)) …. very funny …. LOL
Its sad to me that most people dont really understand Christianity, even some Christians. When a “Christian” group gets on the news for protesting a military funeral or picketing in front of an abortion clinic, other people see that and believe that thats how all Christians are, and that its a condemning religion bent on judging others. Thats just simply not true. Those people on the news dont have any idea what they are doing, because if they would actually open the Bible they would see that Christ’s commandment is to love and forgive other people, not spew hate at them. Real Christianity is compassionate and tolerant, but unfortunately its the rediculous, intolerant people who make the news and give the entire religion a bad name.