digg

Join DiggAbout

If You Only Had a Brain...

themishmash.com — Stupid people making stupid mistakes!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hdar3415, on 01/30/2008, -9/+23These are the people that make life interesting for the rest of us.
    • thebrawl, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2These are the people that vote for people like you know who.
  • wealer, on 01/30/2008, -17/+8Was $399.00, Now On Sale For $399.00... Hilarious Pictures!
  • Error601, on 01/30/2008, -20/+7Wow was that lame.
  • DarkSamus, on 01/30/2008, -14/+9dinosaurs were the size of sheepsez, people!
    • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -5/+3A young dino would indeed be the size of a sheep
      • Merendino, on 01/30/2008, -3/+10then what dinosaur took care of it when it was young and helped it grow into adulthood? Maybe thats why all the dinosaurs went extinct huh? The adult dinosaurs couldn't raise the younger ones because they couldnt' fit on the ship and all the younger ones died from lack of raising.... man it all makes so much sense to me now.

      • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Because young giraffes aren't already bigger then humans...
    • themastersb, on 01/30/2008, -4/+8Even the thought of fitting on the billions of species of Earth on a single boat is dumb.
      • D3PyroGS, on 01/31/2008, -4/+1Notice the plaque said "kind" and not "specie." Creationists don't believe that every specie was on the ark.
    • hansblix, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10What I wanna know is how did the termites survive? Surely they were'nt allowed on the ark...
  • weiwuwei, on 01/30/2008, -13/+44NO DUMPLING!!
  • ZWarren69, on 01/30/2008, -8/+29Exclusive photos of retards, in the wild.
    • Tetraca, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3"We're now approaching a natural habitat of bardus anthropithicus, also known as the common moron. They typically live in fairly large dwellings, and hunt in packs in their natural feeding ground, commonly referred to as a 'mall'. Bardus anthropithicus typically does not feed on sick prey, dubbed 'bargains', but rather goes for the richer targets, depending on what is in or out in this season. They also are capable of wielding primitive tools such as 'credit cards' to take down their prey. These cards often come with the price of wearing down quickly, so multiple cards are often carried."

      "Although they aren't very shy creatures, if we disturb them just right, their shill tones will catch ear of the moronic guards, and even though they might not be the cleverest creatures in the world, their stingers are real buggers. Let's try and catch one."
  • CaffeinePowered, on 01/30/2008, -13/+7Dugg for a few dawrin awards waiting to happen
  • suzywang3000, on 01/30/2008, -15/+8"Will you marrie me Kim?"

    "I would have, but you spelled 'marry' wrong and there should be a question mark at the end of the question. It's over.
    • JCPahl, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4She'd be doing her future children a favor, yes.
  • BrokenBokken, on 01/30/2008, -7/+22That would be the shallow, algae infested section of the gene pool.
  • Edwaldo, on 01/30/2008, -15/+53the creationist ones always get me, (explaining how dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark?) incredible.
    • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -37/+6Actually, Noah would have needed only get young dinosaurs (or other young animals that would otherwise be large as adults). Alternatively, they could even bring eggs. Several mathematicians have done the numbers and concluded that indeed every kind of animal could have easily fit on the ark and done so easily..

      What so many people fail to understand is that during Noah's time, there would not have been the deviation of species as there are today as a the result of thousands of years of breeding. There were no lions, tigers, cats etc. There was only the parent of this type of animal family... whatever that was. (Sabertooth tiger?)

      Fewer animals types and only taking the youngest... would actually allow room for all the animals, but also enough food for all of them and even have room to spare if we use the dimensions quoted in the Bible.
      • raniya, on 01/30/2008, -2/+24Are you really believing this stuff? No lions, no tigers...Noah, if indeed existed (since the story is borrowed from another story in the Epic of Gilgamesh) lived in the 10 or 11th century bc perhaps..
        And I can tell you that there were no dinosaurs then.
        • Shirt, on 01/30/2008, -1/+19Seriously, Christian (or Jew) or not I don't understand why people would ever assume Dinosaurs would have been around then. Completely ridiculous. But also hilarious.
      • beloitpiper, on 01/30/2008, -2/+39First, please name ANY mathematician that has concluded that. Secondly, I hope you do not honestly believe Noah lived among saber-toothed tigers. The last of them disappeared 9,000 years ago, and Noah, if he even existed, lived 4,000 years ago at the most.

        Ugh.
        • joshman5k, on 01/30/2008, -1/+32How did he get the kangaroos on to the boat? have you ever tried to catch one of those!!!
        • PDubNYC, on 01/30/2008, -5/+3"have you ever tried to catch one of those!!!"
          No, but I saw part of Kangaroo Jack, and boy, they had a heck of time catching up with that thing. What shenanigans that 'roo pulled on them!!!
      • WolverineBlue, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6"during Noah's time, there would not have been the deviation of species"
        Yeah, because there's nothing like reducing every species to a population of 2 to increase genetic diversity.
      • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5God told Noah to build an arc 150 cubits long by 100 cubits tall by 100 cubits wide. A cubit is at most 18 inches. So the largest the boat could have possible been is 225x150x150. Excluding food, walls, a house for Noah, and other supplies. It would still be impossible for two of every animal on the boat.
      • thecompkid, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8Wait a minute. You justify your creationist argument by saying that species evolved since 4000 years ago? Anyone else seeing the huge glaring contradiction?

        EDIT: Crap, already said, I didn't see it though, honest, maybe if zachtib used the reply button...
      • darrenpauli, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9(Excuse my caps but) KELLY, YOU ARE A ***** MORON. YOU AND ALL OF YOUR ***** IDIOTIC HALLUCINATING CREATIONIST FRIENDS. STOP SPREADING YOUR ***** DUMB BELIEFS AROUND AND WASTING REAL ESTATE WITH YOUR LITTLE ALICE IN WONDERLAND MUSEUMS. We need a vaccine for creationism. ***** IDIOT. Everyone else is entitled to their beliefs, but creationism is dangerous to the human genome.
    • zachtib, on 01/30/2008, -4/+61>> There were no lions, tigers, cats etc. There was only the parent of this type of animal family... whatever that was. (Sabertooth tiger?)

      Wouldn't that be admitting evolution, though?
      • Double0Doug, on 01/30/2008, -5/+18Oh SNAP!
      • Shirt, on 01/30/2008, -13/+5Yeah, but the Bible doesn't condemn evolution, just like it doesn't say that the world is 6000 years old. People made that one up. I am also fully aware that it can be argued that people made the Bible up too, so just leave me alone FAGZ0RZ!!1
        • brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Yes, the Bible condemns macro-evolution. If you take the geneologies found in the Bible (family trees) it states how long each person lived for. Do the math, and you end up with about 6000 years. The Bible made that up, not man.
      • JCPahl, on 01/30/2008, -7/+1Pwnd.
      • directedition, on 01/31/2008, -5/+9Careful now. If evolution is true, then a cat or something should jump out whenever I open a can of peanut butter. And obviously Bananas are designed to fit into the human hand. Stop being so blind!!
      • flippedcracker, on 01/31/2008, -5/+5there's a difference between macro and micro evolution.
        • Miknarf, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7no their is'nt. Those are just sudo-scientific terms made up by creationists.
        • drafhk, on 01/31/2008, -6/+1And you're just a pseudo-intellectual made by Richard Dawkins.
        • brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3Thank you for making that comment. This isn't pseodo-scientific terms, but reality. micro evolution = natural selection WITHIN species = OBSERVED. macro evolution = natural selection outside species = NOT OBSERVED + flawed hypothesis.
        • sougly, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3They're not "sudo"-scientific terms, neither are they pseudo-scientific terms. Scientists use them but creationists define them differently to twist logic to their agenda. You hear them use it a lot, but they ignore what the scientific community regards as macroevolution.
        • skyfire1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1facepalm.jpg
  • leerayIG88, on 01/30/2008, -4/+84"Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip"
    • yohnstoppable, on 01/30/2008, -11/+3The correct quote is "shut up brian, or I'll stab you with a q-tip". Embiggen your Simpsons quoting abilities post haste.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11That is a perfectly cromulent quote.
      • gordonp, on 01/30/2008, -0/+13Who is brian?
        • Gizza, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1He is a mouse who tries to take over the world every night.
    • gordonp, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Aargh
  • markbrown, on 01/30/2008, -28/+2Don't taze me, bro.
    • Magnus150, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Sorry, you fail. Thanks for playing.
  • greeniemeani, on 01/30/2008, -8/+1I'd still open the door.
  • Spero, on 01/30/2008, -14/+2What? Don't tell me you guys believe in dinosaurs...let alone that Noah would even let such sinners on his yacht.
  • acdcfanbill, on 01/30/2008, -10/+10Perhaps the computer person descends from the English Tudor's.
  • spineaches, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9that last guy is my hero.
    • Klainmeister, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4yeah, i don't understand why that's a bad idea. i've done much stupider things on ladders when i worked for a house painting company.
    • woohhaa, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I've done worst trying to run CAT5. Thank god for wifi.
      • TRENT310, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Wifi is still slower...that's why I continue to put the effort into running network cable.
        • woohhaa, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1For a lot of our applications, the speed just really isn't an issue. I still do my fair share of cable drops, and of course a trip to the 35 foot ceiling to pull a bad access point from time to time.
  • drlha, on 01/30/2008, -4/+119As I commented on the blog: If you look on this page: http://www.linkedin.com/in/joannetudor it would appear that Computer Tudor was owned by someone called "Joanne Tudor", so was a play on her name and not dumb at all.
    • yacks, on 01/30/2008, -3/+7And you don't neede to be a gud spelir to fix compooters.
      • louiedog, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1I've known people who have ***** up pretty permanent signs like you get on a truck paint job. They claim good spelling isn't necessary to do their jobs well. That may be true, but it's very telling of a person's professionalism if they don't take the time to make sure something like that is correct.
      • akh4x0r, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4u ju57 n33d 70 kn0w t3h 1337 5p34k
    • mistergoomba, on 01/30/2008, -7/+1too esoteric, therefore kinda dumb
      • wildfire, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9"Esoteric?"

        "Could it mean sexy?"
        "I think it's a science term."
        "Fellas, fellas! Esoteric means delicious!"
        • twrife, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I actually watched that episode today, were you watching me?
    • EvilFerret, on 01/30/2008, -3/+10 University of Phoenix...............Red flag.
    • CatalystGhost, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I read that one and had to stare at it for a while... I really didn't know what was wrong with it. Mostly because I assumed it was a name instead of a title, "tutor".
    • Lyght, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2But how many potential customers are actually going to get that reference?
  • hmmmok, on 01/30/2008, -7/+6Maybe the computer tudor is a British royal
  • MasterPlayer, on 01/30/2008, -20/+10It's missing a picture of Americans voting for Bush.
  • noahw, on 01/30/2008, -10/+212. You wouldn't vote for this: http://echopic.com/d6n
  • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -37/+24Wow... Somebody on digg found a link with several pictures that bashes the teachings of Christianity! How original!
    • gotterdammerung, on 01/30/2008, -17/+8Those pictures are simply representing the teachings of Christianity, not bashing them. How would pictures of text recapitulating the Genesis story possibly be construed as "bashing?!"
      • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -13/+6Because the title says, "If You Only Had a Brain..." suggesting that those who teach such things are brainless.... hence the bashing.
        • gotterdammerung, on 01/30/2008, -5/+2Didn't think I'd need the "/sarcasm" tag...
        • ostracize, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5Christianity doesn't teach the defence of a literal interpretation and rejection of counter evidence at all costs. It's bashing Creationism (a noble endeavor), not Christianity.
          • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3"Christianity doesn't teach the defence of a literal interpretation and rejection of counter evidence at all costs."

            Yes, it does as the alternative suggests that God was purposefully vaig thus allowing anybody to interpret his teachings. While that could be a possibility, its unlikely as it runs counter to the historical way he taught
        • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -5/+6Actually Christianity DOES teach the literal interpretation of the Bible. "Counter evidence" may seem like it has a case, but only because countering evidence to that counter evidence isn't allowed to make it to the front page on this site.

          As a result, when you bash creationism, you bash Christianity. If you believe the Bible is foulable you can pretty much chuck the whole thing as none of it can be trusted then.
          • oldhick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Can you show me where Christianity claims that? As with many people, I have a bit of Christianity in my past. There was a point where I studied the bible closely. Never in my life did I read a passage that said the bible must be taken literally word for word. The bible is supposed to be inspired by God, not written by God.
            Many Christian scholars contend that many of the stories in the Bible (Revelations is a good example) are similar to modern day political cartoons. Without the context of living in those times its difficult to read and fully understand the points they were making.
            Finally, Christianity is a broad term that includes many different denominations, practices, and teachings. No one branch of Christianity believes exactly the same as another. Heck, even Mormons are calling themselves Christian these days.
          • oldhick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Actually, Christianity DOES NOT teach the literal interpretation of the Bible. To be fair here, you need to define your terms. First the word Christianity encompasses many denominations, branches, and teachings. No one denomination or branch believes exactly what another believes. There are many examples of different believes within different branches and denominations. So, your particular views on Christianity require a literal interpretation. That is great for you, but not everyone believes what you believe.
            Second, it is important to understand that most Christian scholars (including the ones that determined which letters would make up the Bible) believe that the writings in the Bible were inspired by God, not written by God. Therefor each individual authors writings are reflective of their unique individualism. This is why letters by Matthew, Mark, etc.. contain differences and focus on different things.
            Also, alternative interpretations of the Bible do not explicitly indicate it is foulable. For instance, many Christian scholars who except evolution do not believe the Bible is foulable, rather they believe the story of creation to be one similar to a political cartoon. It was a convenient way for God to communicate the creation of the earth to man without having to send the arch angel of Evolutionary theory to earth to explain the intricate details of evolution to an extremely poorly educated mankind.
            None of us are the authority on God and we shouldn't make exclusive claims to the intent and meaning of the Bible. Its fairly clear that after years of war and arguments between Christians over this very subject that God must have intentionally obscured some things from us.
          • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1@oldhick,

            "Can you show me where Christianity claims that"
            "Never in my life did I read a passage that said the bible must be taken literally word for word. "

            Most churches based on Judao Christian beliefs accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. Seeing as though there is no one single authority to point to, I can't give you a reference but rather just my experience as such.

            Your reference to Revelation as a modern day political cartoon doesn't support your argument as the events were described as being analogous to something else. The same is true with the parables described in the Bible. Those were analogies to describe something else and (like revaluation) referenced them as such.
          • tdowling, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2"Seeing as though there is no one single authority to point to, I can't give you a reference but rather just my experience as such."

            My experience contradicts yours. So...hmm...I guess it's inconclusive.
          • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2tdowling,

            Can you give me a list of Churches you've attended that doesn't interpret the Bible literally... or were you just yet another digger trying to post some level of opposition to a belief system that you don't know much about yet never cared to actually research what you so vehemently disregard as not worthy of your attention?
          • Sucka27, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Kelly you're wrong. Christianity does not teach the literal interpretation of the Bible. The people you listen to do and you believe what you hear. Millions of Christians believe it is to be taken figuratively in many places and literally in very few. Your definition of "most churches" most likely includes yours and a few others in your area, don't be so typically Christian.

            You know, certainty is actually a flaw because it makes you think you know everything when you're not even smart enough to realize how much you don't know. Real truth comes when you acknowledge that not everything cut and dry, not even in the Bible. If Christians weren't so scared of admitting they aren't sure about something they might get a little more respect. Especially when backed into a corner on issues like evolution that make the opposing viewpoint look completely rediculous.
          • fitogordo, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2How can you say that "Actually Christianity DOES teach the literal interpretation of the Bible."? That just shows you have a narrow and self-centered view of the world. If I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics are still the largest Christian denomination in the world, and here's the Catholic Church's position on evolution:
            "The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict"
            source Wikipedia:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Rom ...
            and another quote:
            Since 1950, the Roman Catholic Church has asserted that a belief in the natural evolution of biological diversity (including the human body) through material processes is not inconsistent with Church teaching. The Church explicitly endorses neither an evolutionary nor a special creation view of the origin of biological diversity. The Church recognizes that there is "mounting support for some theory of evolution,"
            source:
            http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm
            So the largest group of Christians in the world, does not teach "the literal interpretation of the Bible", as is evident in their position on evolution. Furthermore their position on evolution itself, is way more enlightened, and more consistent with scientific fact and theory than the position of the evolutionist fundies.
          • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2@Sucka27

            "Kelly you're wrong. Christianity does not teach the literal interpretation of the Bible."

            As pointed out now in two of my posts, "most churches based on Judao Christian beliefs accept the literal interpretation of the Bible."

            "The people you listen to do and you believe what you hear."

            At least give me some credit for saying I believe what I believe without an insinuation that I accept what I'm told.


            "Millions of Christians believe it is to be taken figuratively in many places and literally in very few."

            That may in fact be true yet it doesn't negate my experience that most Christian churches believe the Bible to be taken literally.


            "Your definition of "most churches" most likely includes yours and a few others in your area, don't be so typically Christian."

            I'm speaking of every area I've ever lived in... not just my current area.


            "You know, certainty is actually a flaw because it makes you think you know everything when you're not even smart enough to realize how much you don't know."

            And I suppose you're *certain* of that aren't you.


            "Real truth comes when you acknowledge that not everything cut and dry, not even in the Bible."

            Don't assume that I lack the ability believe Right about the first part... wrong about the second.


            "If Christians weren't so scared of admitting they aren't sure about something they might get a little more respect."

            Christians aren't as a whole scared of admitting they aren't sure about something any more than anyone else. With that said, you're contradicting yourself by lumping all Christians into a group who think they have all the answers and then just before that claiming that its a false statement that Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. With that said, Christians ought not be concerned about gaining the respect of others by allowing their beliefs to be compromised. If anything THAT, is how respect is lost.


            "Especially when backed into a corner on issues like evolution that make the opposing viewpoint look completely rediculous."

            But Christians aren't backed into a corner on issues like evolution. At the beginning of your post you claimed that my beliefs came about from the people I listen to and that I simply believe what I hear rather than me coming to my conclusions based on my own research... which is absolutely necessary for Christians in today's society because we have to go against the grain. Perhaps the same argument ought to be applied to your belief system in evolution and the "religion" that revolves around it.
          • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2fitogordo,

            I never considered Catholicism as being among hose that followed the Bible literally. While I and many Christians include Catholics within the general scope of that which makes of Christianity, Catholicism has a number of other issues (even more concerning that their position on evolution and creationism) such as regarding Mary to be above that of Jesus, and the practice of petitioning of saints to pray for them (rather than praying directly to Jesus. With that said, it doesn't negate my original point the most christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. (IE, even if the biggest sect of Christianity believes one way, doesn't disprove the notion that most Christians believe that way. I mean, its not like Catholicism makes up 51% of all Christians.)
          • tdowling, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yes Kelly, I'm Christian, and I grew up in a church community which treats the Bible as a moral guidebook of stories that, while at their essence spoke of truths, were written to particular audiences and within particular historical contexts. We understand that the Bible was presented in a way that needed to fit within the knowledge-base and feasible understanding of the original readers.

            Obviously there's a lot more scientific knowledge now - and why should explanations of the world that were given without any of that knowledge supersede what science has told us? Why does *our* context not count?

            Unless you reject all the scientific knowledge - then that gives us a completely different discussion.
          • fitogordo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Well, my point is still valid: you wrote “Christians” and not “those that followed the Bible literally” in your post. Also, I’m glad you and “many Christians”, include Catholics “within the general scope of that which makes of Christianity”, because I would hate to have to break the news to the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, who consider themselves to be Christian, that they are actually not because kelly from Digg said so.

            As far as your statement about the Catholic Church “regarding Mary to be above that of Jesus”, I’m pretty sure that is not an official church position. For the Catholic church, Jesus, is not only the son of God, but also God himself (you know, the whole Holy Trinity thing), thus Mary can’t be “above” Jesus, since Jesus is God, and God is… well, you know… supposed to be the head cheese.

            I don’t know what the official position of the church is in regards to worshipping saints, but I think that it is at least tolerated. Probably it’s considered that the saint, or any other church-approved divinity you might bring up, is a vessel or conduit to God, and praying to them or God, amounts to the same thing as long as you are a good Catholic and follow all their rules. But I admit, that’s just an educated guess from an ex-Catholic that attended a Catholic high school, and not the opinion of a priest, cardinal, or someone who studied theology at Fordham.

            @kelly “With that said, it doesn't negate my original point the most christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.”

            Well, the fact that the total number of Christians in the world is 1.9 billion and that Catholics make up 1.1 billion of that total does “negate” your statement. Additionally, considering the fact that Orthodox Christians and Anglicans are theologically closer to the Catholic Church than to the other groups, the numbers, simply do not support your “most Christians” statement.

            @kelly “IE, even if the biggest sect of Christianity believes one way, doesn't disprove the notion that most Christians believe that way. I mean, its not like Catholicism makes up 51% of all Christians.”

            Huh, what? If the biggest sect of Christianity happens to account for over 50% of all Christians and believes one way, it does PROVE that most Christians believe that way. And, yes “it’s like” Catholics account for over 51% of all Christians worldwide so you FAIL again.

            Listen, this is not an attack on your beliefs. I will always defend your right to believe in whatever you want to. However, do not speak for all “Christians”. You see, most “Christians” in the world ARE Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church pretty much started this whole “Christian” thing. So instead of questioning whether Catholics are Christian or not, I suggest you simply start calling yourself “Neo-Christian” or “Born-again Christian” or whatever suits you and stop trying to speak for most of the “Christians” in the world.
        • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3oldhick,

          the general understanding of what Christianity is revolves around those churches that adopt the Judaeo Christian belief system. Of those that do, most (in my experience) do indeed interpret the Bible literally (except where it's specifically meant to be taken figuratively.... parables and analogies etc.

          You're right. The Bible was inspired by God and written by man. When people speak of the Bible being inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word inspiration simply means “God-Breathed.” Inspiration communicates to us the fact the Bible truly is the Word of God, and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

          While there are different views as to what extent the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word, in every part of the Bible, is inspired by God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. What that means is that the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal inspiration), not just concepts or ideas; and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary inspiration). There are some people who believe that only parts of the Bible are inspired, or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of what the Bible itself claims. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

          The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every part from Genesis to Revelation is the very Word of God. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God, “training in righteousness.”

          Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse tells us that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” This verse helps us to understand that although men wrote the Scriptures, the words they wrote were the very words of God. Even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote. Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark - because it is the very word of God.

          Because the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, we can conclude that they are also inerrant and authoritative.
        • Sucka27, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1How do you know the Scriptures are the inspired word of God? Because the Scripture says so? So you believe something 100% that has no basis of validity except itself. You believe scripture because scripture tells you to.

          Do you wonder why there are so many skeptics?

          Btw, if you were going to mention faith in your response just remember that that concept comes from the same source. So you have faith because the Bible that tells you to believe the Bible says where things get sketchy, just have faith.
        • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Funny...
          your lack of faith also stems from subjects discussed in that same source.
          • Sucka27, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Wait...that makes no sense. You don't know anything about my faith or lack thereof. Why would you be so arrogant to say you do? And no, my lack of faith has nothing to do with it, it has to do with logic.
        • Sucka27, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Kelly you really think you're on plane with God's line of reasoning? How many times have you heard "the Lord works in mysterious ways" to explain something that defies their predictions? So now you just think you can say what would and wouldn't run counter to 'the historical way he taught.' I'd say it runs contrary to each other to have a God that ordered the wholesale slaughter of every man woman and child at Jericho but then sends his son to preach about peace and turning the other cheek. The God of the old testament is completely contradictory to the teachings of Christ but you know better don't you?
          Kelly, you don't know everything...not by a longshot. Most of the stuff you're yapping about makes you look like a foolish little girl.
    • jerbaker, on 01/30/2008, -7/+8How does a picture bash anybody? You are essentially saying that the teachings of Christianity bash themselves and all that is required is for somebody to publicize them. I don't think you wanted to say that so you might want to go home and rethink your Christian victim strategy.
      • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -5/+5Because the title says, "If You Only Had a Brain..." suggesting that those who teach such things are brainless.... hence the bashing.
        • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -4/+1I'm an atheist, and think it was unnecessary for you to make a comment like he one above, but you do have a point.
    • davidpeace2002, on 01/30/2008, -7/+10I'm a proud atheist. I'll bash christianity for you!!
      • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -8/+5How very atheist of you.
        • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4'cause youve never bashed an atheist before...
          • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Because you bash Christians you automatically think I bash atheists?
        • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -5/+2No. I try to teach rather than bash.
          • Cmstech, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2yea right
          • oojamaflip2006, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Sadly what you are teaching is the most infantile drivel that It has ever been my pleasure to read. I laughed out loud at your comments about the sabre toothed tigers. Someone whose view is so shallow, narrow, and uncompromisingly dim witted, has no business being a teacher.
          • kelly, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Wow and you people say Christians are "know it alls"
    • JCPahl, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2I thought you guys expected to be persecuted?
      • kelly, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3So do homosexuals that walk the streets of Alabama but that doesn't mean those persecuted will regard it as being anything less than completely unfair and unjust.
      • alkajazz, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1On digg nothing is sacred. Get used to it.
  • jknation, on 01/30/2008, -4/+51I actually thought that use of trash bin to level the ladder was smart.. little bit dangerous but clearly not brainless.
    • tbunreal, on 01/30/2008, -5/+4Cant say the same for the way he was standing.
    • Csaliture, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6I dont even think it would be that dangerous. I dont think the trash bin is going to go anywhere. Either way, who would hire a professional to hang christmas lights?
    • diggmaddy, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Well, smart or not, there's nothing wrong with a DIY attitude. There are people who do it due to interest and not just to save money. If an adult understands the risks involved and proceeds with his activities, I wouldn't call him/her stupid.
  • JM0ney, on 01/30/2008, -8/+0Looks to me that some of the people in those pictures are the same people that will show up in the Darwin awards!
  • LemonDefragger, on 01/30/2008, -4/+13Those comments did not really do it for me.
  • 89vision, on 01/30/2008, -8/+2Website for the company in the first pic:

    http://www.petrainc.net/
    • matt850, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I thought this was at first to the adult store. ;)
      • sweetpeame, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0this is not the company from the first pick - it isn't in Idaho
  • ycohain, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10I thought I had a brain but I have to admit it took me a second to get the "this door is closed" sign
  • manatee, on 01/30/2008, -12/+4Not a sign, but one of the dumbest things I've seen.... surely they are joking here:

    http://www.hotauctionitems.com/site-news/pool-bbq
  • ycohain, on 01/30/2008, -6/+2you'd wear sunscreen and avoid looking like this:
    http://i30.tinypic.com/2qtl2fo.jpg
    • silentcollision, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Got Photoshop?
      • NathanielJ, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah, must be Photoshop because the idea that someone got sunburned on their face and forearms is just too outlandish to be real.
  • tehbored, on 01/30/2008, -6/+7Actually the ladder in that last one looks pretty stable. Also it doesn't look like too bad of a drop.
    • disgruntledgoat, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1I reckon he'd cain himself if it did go, but yeah does look pretty stable the thing is he is leaning back into it.
  • qt88Jenn, on 01/30/2008, -8/+2LOL, I wonder who drives the Petra truck!
    • jerbaker, on 01/30/2008, -7/+3Some victim of the persecution of Christians I'm sure. Hey, picketing a doctor's private home because you don't like abortion is legitimate, but taking a picture of a hypocrite with a cross on his car while he's buying pornography is persecution I tell you.
  • rento, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3seen better in email rounds... let the burying axe squeak!
  • maeon3, on 01/30/2008, -7/+2People still believe in a literal Noah's ark? How is this possible? It's as if people WANT to believe in fantasy.
  • heyphyuckyou, on 01/30/2008, -4/+2I lol'd at that Circuit City price tag. Save $0. What a ***** hole.
  • JohnnyRad, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3you wouldn't read digg every 5 minutes
  • Gimpishi, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Made me think of MC 900 FT Jesus...
  • Shakermaker, on 01/30/2008, -4/+1...it is possible that the "Computer Tudor" may be a play on words.
    • Goldennova, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah I didn't get that. If that is what is supposed to be funny about it then I don't get why it is sooo stupid. It's a good play on words.
  • lwgoodman, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Tudor is probably the name of the owner of the shop:
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/joannetudor
    • Cmstech, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1as it has been mentioned on the page itself and on the comments here.....
  • silentdragoon, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I don't get the first picture of #5. Explanation, anyone?
    • JCPahl, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Explanation: They're trying to refute scientific discoveries with assertions from a book of fairy tales written thousands of years ago. The humor is in the absurdity.
      • brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Nice... and you call us ignorant...
  • SamPollock, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1i love how they have an adrvertisment for Obama at the bottom
  • polencia, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3I like how he put some random funny pics and then threw a bunch of pictures making fun of creationism after. you fail at hiding your ulterior motive.
    • sealhands, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2i think the motivation was to show idiots, creationists are an easy target because they are inherently idiotic.
  • chelbell, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0The second picture from #5 is hilarious.
  • sealhands, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6future = heat death
    • oojamaflip2006, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2a new meme is born.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Think there are more scientific theories, with evidence from past "ice ages" that'd support the termination of the human species being caused by intense cold rather than intense heat. Perhaps they misunderstood global warming and just thought that's what it meant.

      Ooh on that note.. Global Warming
      An increase in the rate, and severity of the natural heating/cooling cycle.
      ::::
      Sinners filling up hell at an increased rate, burning, thus causing Earth to warm significantly from the inside. Reserve your seat in Heaven today and help stop global warming. Vote Jesus.
  • irvin666, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I don't understand the "this door is closed" part. If it's closed, well, no need to pull the handle since it's locked....right?
    • lanthrax, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1A statement of the obvious?
      Or maybe it's not so obvious, people didn't realize the door was closed and would walk into the glass?
      Or maybe it was a back/side entrance to a store and they didn't want people entering from that side so they just put a note on the door?(Although a note saying, "Please use main entrance" or something would be better...
      Not sure either
  • topdeck55, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2That first truck is magic, you can see an entirely different house through the windscreen.
    • speedyrev, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Isn't Photoshop a great application.
    • jerbaker, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Would that be the different house with the same siding, in the same color, with slats oriented in the same direction?
    • sweetpeame, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0actually - it's just the front of the building - there's a small overhang over the entrance - the photo is 100% authentic
  • arizonabay, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1In response to the train one, I'm not sure where that was taken, but from what little I can tell from the tracks, it looks like it was taken near a railyard or industry. This, combined with the fact that the headlight is not on (which, in accordance with operating procedures, it must be whilst moving) as well as the conductor's chair (right side) being empty, it would appear that the train is stopped right before the crossing.
    • jerbaker, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1With the diesel going full crank? You can't see through the right side windshield considering it's reflecting the sun. The headlight appears to be lost in the reflection of the sun, but the ditch lights are clearly on. I'm not sure you can turn on the ditch lights without turning on the headlight.
    • oaktree, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Maybe the train was going backward....
  • hibry, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0I'd like to second topdeck55 and say that #1 is obviously faked.
  • TheHim, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Unbelievable stuff, i like those series.

    "If you only had a brain" != "If only you had a brain".
  • UnkelJethro, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0If you only had a brain, you wouldn't be on digg.
  • hungryhermit, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Regarding #5: What does the table show the bible saying about ETs?
  • MsAntiSunshine, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I would definitely turn someone down if they misspelled "marry". -_-
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.