Awkward Billboard is Awkward

Published May 22nd, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

Billboard placed in Greensboro, North Carolina after Rapture fails to show.

Does anyone know the story on this billboard? It almost looks like a moderate Christian group mocking the Rapture sect for their extreme views.

What I am wondering is this: when the world did not end, did it cause anyone to become more rational? Or will the Doomsdayers become stronger believers (as sometimes happens in cults) – and more importantly, do moderate Christians feel their interpretation of the bible has been validated?

197 Responses to “Awkward Billboard is Awkward”

  1. Hucklesberries says:

    My favorite quote thus far; “So we got the date wrong. It’s not like its the end of the world.”

    • Dionaea says:

      Obviously it wasn’t XD I didn’t learn the world was supposed to end until monday morning XD

      • Brennana says:

        Wat did ur dreams involve?

  2. Big Guy says:

    God will not reveal the day or time because men can not be trusted especially atheist’s.

    He will come like a thief in the night no man knows the day or time…

    But I have to say the recent tornado epidemic in the US is alarming. Usually 60 to 70 die yearly from tornado’s.
    So far this year it’s over 500 and counting as the season has just begun. Revelatory…prophetic…scriptural… apocalyptic…need more?

    • Brian Fritzen says:

      That isn’t true at all, liar. You are not the Big Guy who posts funny, satirical posts. Therefore you are an imposter.

      537 died in 1896 404 in 1909. There have been many, many catastrophic years. HOWEVER, the trend for Tornado deaths since about 1925 has been a distinct DECREASE. Stop using Wikipedia for all your information. That site is not allowed as a source in academics.

      • Matiir says:

        I’m sorry but, Atheists can’t be trusted but the lord is going to come like a Thief in the night.. How does that make sense??

        • Keith says:

          Great! That means I can find out where some fundie lives, break into his house at night and say “Don’t worry about me pinching your stuff, I am the Lord thy God come to fulfill prophecy”.

    • Big Guy says:

      What is even more alarming is that a large section of the bible belt is also part of tornado ally. Clearly this means something.

      • stylusmobilus says:

        I can hear four or five F18’s over my head. In a peaceful country like Australia, surely this means something.

      • midnight_rider says:

        It means God wants to kill Christians. I know this because the first book of the bible, Genesis contains all the letters that I used to make the first sentence in this post. It is a sign.

  3. Big Guy says:

    the season has just begun this thing is going to shatter all records per Dian Sawyer

  4. CheeseSauce says:

    Those who chose to believe in the Rapture will still believe that Camping was right, just that he was once again off by a few years. You can change the minds of someone whose beliefs are so extreme that they are willing to ignore their own bible.

    Do moderate Xtians believe that their intrepretation of the bible is validated? Who knows? It does depend on person to person. I am personally friends with many moderate/light (I make a distinction) Xtians and on Saturday we spend most of the day mocking the idea of the rapture coming that day. They said that no one will ever know the date or time and thus obviously Saturday could never be the day.

    Personally, I believe that the FSM will at least give us a heads up. After all, he’s got to prepare us for the awesome that awaits us at the base of that much awaited Beer Volcano.

    Perhaps that Icelandic Volcano eruption is a sign? Probably not. Volcanoes get grumpy too.

    • Matiir says:

      a question about this much discussed beer volcano.. I don’t like beer.. is there perhaps a mixed drink volcano nearby??

      • threonin says:

        I hope so, I don’t drink alcohol.
        But I’m sure the FSM in it’s infinite wisdom has volcanos for every drink one desires set up.

        Ramen and may pesto be upon you!

        • wulff says:

          I always just assumed there was a Barq’s volcano for the kiddies…

        • threonin says:

          It’s not that I’m to young to drink alcohol, I simply chose not to.
          I know that sounds weird, but I like to keep a clean head.

        • wulff says:

          I didn’t mean to imply that you or anyone else was underage. I only drink alcohol on very rare occasions and never developed a taste for beer, so I myself planned to imbibe from the Barq’s geyser. I meant to say only that I presumed there would be alternatives. My apologies for any misunderstanding.

        • tekHedd says:

          Barqs has caffeine. I believe that root beer does not need caffeine to be good… I imagine there may be more than one root beer volcano, just as there will be both ale and pilsner. I mean, we’re talking about heaven, right? :)

        • Matiir says:

          personally I would be okay with a tequila volcano.. if your going to get drunk make the bad taste worth it ;)

        • Encyclodpedia Brit says:

          I’m from Texas and like all good Texans, I drink Big Red.

        • CheeseSauce says:

          I can’t imagine that the FSM would leave out his devoted followers who also don’t/can’t drink. Besides, I’m with you on the root beer.

        • threonin says:

          LeChuck will have a hard time with all that root beer around.

  5. ThePromiscuousReader says:

    “…when the world did not end, did it cause anyone to become more rational? Or will the Doomsdayers become stronger believers (as sometimes happens in cults) – and more importantly, do moderate Christians feel their interpretation of the bible has been validated? ”

    The word “rational” is becoming a red flag for me as I see more ravingly irrational material by my fellow atheists, though this post isn’t much of an offender. Who’s rational? Who’s more rational? Being an atheist does not in itself make you more rational, as witness Ayn Rand and her cult. Being a non-Christian does not in itself make you more rational. Being a Christian does not in itself make you irrational. Rationality, much as I love it, will only take you so far. Being rational in one area does not mean you will be rational in every area.

    The words “moderate” and “extreme” are also red flags. Being an atheist is widely considered extreme; being an agnostic is widely considered more moderate. I’m content to be extreme on that issue. As Ellen Willis wrote, the male chauvinist view is that women are inferior to men; the feminist view is that women are equal to men; the unbiased view is that the truth lies somewhere in between. Again, I’m content to be a feminist extremist. More “moderate” Christians might very well consider their biblical interpretations to be vindicated by the failure of Jesus to appear on schedule for the thousandth time, but their interpretations might be seriously flawed anyway: for example, their careful avoidance of the the saying two verses before Matthew 24:36, in which Jesus promises that “this generation” — that is, the generation of his first followers — “will not pass away until all things” — from the destruction of the Temple to his appearance on clouds at the right hand of Power — “be fulfilled.” Moderate and even “extreme” Christians have done their best to explain why this verse doesn’t mean what it means. Better to be “extreme,” in my opinion, and declare that it means what it says, and that Jesus was on this evidence a false prophet.

    The trouble with Harold Camping is not that he is extreme, but that he’s wrong. The same can be said of many atheists, many scientists, and many self-styled rationalists. But rationalism is never a guarantee that you’re right.

    • Big Guy says:

      Rationalism is not a guarantee but any assertion made without a rational process is even more fallible. If there existed a ‘perfect’ means of acquiring knowledge we would use that, since one does not exist, we have to follow a path that yields the most success which is why reason takes precedence.

    • threonin says:

      Sure, being rational doesn’t automatically make you right, but it gives you the ability to change your position when you are proven wrong. Not even being Christian and being rational are mutually exclusive, in fact most of the Christians I know are rational. They see the bible as what it is, a collection of parables and nothing more, they even accept evolution. It is those who take it literally, that bother me. Yes, I tried arguing with them, but it is nothing but a waste of time, they simply ignore arguments and cite bible texts, how can that ever lead to a useful discussion?
      I don’t think it’s worthwhile nitpicking single words, philosophers have written entire books on one single definition. The narrower term fundamentalism for sure is the better choice.

      • ThePromiscuousReader says:

        If “being rational … gives you the ability to change your position when you are proven wrong,” then why are so many self-styled rationalists unable to change their positions? Scientific racism in updated forms, for example, never quite goes away. Anyway, “rational” isn’t something you *are*, it’s something you *do.*

        The Bible is not “a collection of parables and nothing more.” That’s not the alternative to considering it inerrant. The Christian Bible contains quite a variety of kinds of material. Paul’s letters aren’t parables; the gospels aren’t parables, though they contain parables. And reductionism, the kind of claim you just made (X is “nothing more” than Y, where X is some complex social phenomenon), isn’t rational.

        Who takes the Bible literally? Nobody takes it literally from start to finish, certainly no fundamentalist I’ve ever encountered. I did once encounter one who claimed she did, but when I threw a few “problem” passages at her, she backtracked immediately: Well, I never meant that you should take it ALL literally! Contrariwise, I’ve run into very few people who don’t take at least parts of the Bible literally. What fundamentalists do is consider the Bible inerrant — that is, free from error — and it often takes very non-literal interpretations to get around the many errors it contains. But then, many liberal Christians do the same. The people who read the Bible most literally are professional scholars.

        Now, one question that often occurs to me is how responsible atheists and other nonbelievers should have to be for making accurate criticisms of the religions they dislike. After all, most Christians are quite ignorant about the Bible and the history of their cult. Just dismiss it without explanation if you don’t like it, but you need to know what you’re talking about if you’re going to criticize it. The irony I’m beginning to realize is that most non-believers *don’t* reject religion for rational reasons, as shown by their inability to give rational reasons for doing so. Rationality (though I love it and try to use it well) isn’t everything.

        • threonin says:

          You’re right, the bible is more than just parables, I just wasn’t able to find a better explanation at the time, I’m not fluent in English and have to look a lot of words up. Your explanation is definitely better than mine, it really is a matter of interpretation. I certainly oversimplified matters to much, it is not always easy to draw a strict line between fundamental and moderate Christians, there is a smooth transition between them. As I feared, this is turning into a discussion about definitions, so let me try again: Maybe the behavior is the key to distinguish between the two groups, as moderates can accept that people have other believes than their own, while fundamentalists can not. I know this is still way to inaccurate for an exact definition, but I hope you get the point.
          Clearly the same is true for atheists, I’m sure there is a whole lot of them just doing it out of spite as protest against their parents or society without giving it much thought. Coming from a Christian family myself, I decided that the things I learned in religion class did not make any sense for me and left church as soon as I was able to. Thankfully my parents never forced me to take on their beliefs, only my grandma tried to do it. I must admit that I sometimes take delight in making fun of Christianity, but never in a harmful way that could hurt others, at least I hope it doesn’t.
          But if I get provoked I might as well overdo it sometimes, but I think that is only human.
          I hope this sounds rational enough for you.

    • Omnipotent Zombie says:

      Thank you TPR; I am always happy when someone submits well-thought points of view and arguments into the forum. i have a question regarding “moderate” and “extreme” atheists.
      i might be mistakened, but I’ve come to an understanding that there are two camps of Atheism: 1) the dictionary-term atheists who reject ALL possibility of the supernatural and 2) other atheists who have not rejected the possiblitiy of the existence of the supernatural.(all they are waiting for is proof)
      In terms of rational, rejecting all possibility of the supernatural is the least rational of the two. -note- (i may be confusing the latter group of atheists with agnostics.)

      • ThePromiscuousReader says:

        OZ, I imagine that you can subdivide atheists into many subgroups. What you’re talking about as 2) appears to be what Antony Flew called “Stratonician atheism,” which puts the burden of argument and proof on the theist. That’s my attitude. But I’m not sure it’s necessarily “moderate”, and I don’t consider the more dogmatic atheists to be “extreme.”

        I’m not ‘waiting for proof’. Proofs don’t often apply to the real world, one way or another; they’re for mathematics.
        “Proof” as applied to science is something else, with nothing like the kind of finality or certainty you get with mathematical proof. I don’t consider the existence of gods to be what I think William James called a live option. I see no reason to believe that gods exist. Even more I distrust people who claim that they know what gods think or want. There are plenty of what I consider good arguments against specific religions, but they aren’t and probably can’t be proofs. Oh: “the supernatural” is a very confused category, not very helpful here.

        What really bothers me about many of my fellow atheists is that so many of them talk about religion as though it were some kind of alien, autonomous force that has invaded human life. To me it seems obvious that religion is something that human beings invented. If “religion” tends to be hostile to human sexuality, for example (though that’s an oversimplification), it’s because human beings are often hostile to, at best ambivalent about the body and its pleasures, and this is reflected in the religions we’ve created. The same applies to war and other human actions. I don’t see any sharp dividing line between religion and other human enterprises. But I don’t see any sharp dividing line between, say, science and other human enterprises either. Science is no more one thing than religion is.

        A friend of mine and I were discussing this lately, and she said that she tries not to talk about what “science” says, but what scientists say, and that I shouldn’t blame Science for the errors of scientists. She’s right, of course, but at the same time, this is exactly the argument that religious apologists make: that Christianity isn’t to blame for the abuses committed in its name, but Christians are. In fact there is no Science and there is no Religion, there are only people talking about and doing them. Religion has no authority, but neither does science.

        • threonin says:

          There is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Religion is static, it has it dogmas which can’t be changed, or better, change over a very large amount of time, as even religions evolve. Science is a process, it creates theories and as soon as they have been disproved, it creates better ones. The goal is the same, the description on how the universe works and how it started.
          Of course, it is always possible to doubt everything, then you have solipsism, who can prove that I’m not the only existence in being, everything could just be a dream. The only thing I can know for sure, is that I myself exist, as Descartes said “cogito ergo sum”. From that point of view, there can be no other proof at all. But that doesn’t get us very far, does it? So I decided for myself, that I’ll accept the world around me as real. As I always have been very curios I am quite interested in how things work. Religion offers simple explanations, but they just don’t feel right… Science on the other hand follows a very simple principle to get asymptotically closer to the reality as we perceive it. Maybe it will never reach it completely and therefore have no absolute authority, but it will always offer the best approximation available at the current moment.

        • Omnipotent Zombie says:

          TPR, when i think of the term supernatural, i apply it to the supposed existences of gods or godesses, spirits, and includes the philisophical beliefs of karma and reincarnation etc; to use an archaic term, the metaphysical. This is a horrible example, but think of something along the lines as “The Force” from the star wars movies. It’s not a he, she, or even an “it”, but it still had a presence.

          Back in the times of ancient, if someone got sick, people believed that it was due to the presence of demons and evil spirits or punishment from their Deity. Today, we know that illness are caused by micro-organisms and our environment. Maybe science will one day advance to the point that that the so-called “supernatural” will be proven to be a natural yet complex function of the universe.

        • threonin says:

          Exactly, there is no such thing as supernatural, as soon as it is happening, it is natural. The laws of nature don’t change, it’s just the models describing them.

        • Bigslicka says:

          Hey OZ, the reason The Force works is because of microscopic beings know as Mitaclorians that live in all things. And Pastafarians have very large amounts of Mitaclorians (they look just like His Noodlyness).

        • Matiir says:

          From some of the literature I’ve happened across it actually describes religion as more of a maladaptive evolutionary trait.. Starting from the basis of children in a tribe needing to listen to their parents to not be eaten by a bear which flowed into having to listen to all elders much like the little Albert (I could have the name wrong) experiment [where they associated hearing a loud noise to a white rabbit making the child become frightened every time he saw the white rabbit; then because the child moved the psychologist were unable to remove the association which morphed into little Albert being afraid of all white rodents not just rabbits later in life]. Which in itself listening to your elders is not a bad thing, but because as a child we are told not to question our elders it kind of changes into an unthinking acceptance which is very bad especially if, like the church, the elders are all about control and promoting their own ideas. We must also realize that early humanity didn’t have the means to explain what was going on around them, therefore the explanation “god did it” was logical. That doesn’t fully explain why people still hold on to the antiquated beliefs but it may explain a wee bit on why so many fall for it.. Also I actually know people who do believe in the literal bible it doesn’t matter what kind of rational argument you throw at them either. Its a sad thing to waste a brain!

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          I understand taking everything with a grain a salt but I have to disagree; I honestly believe science has authority. Let me quantify that statement, science is not β€˜the’ authority, it is not the end all be all answer to every question which nature poses. There is little in science which should be taken as absolute or infallible. However, it is the only route adequately explaining the natural world using methods open for all to scrutinize and more importantly, to change or dismiss as needed when new information is presented. It is this openness to correction which affords science authority, albeit not absolute, but authority nonetheless. Unless you know of an alternative which can say as much?

    • tekHedd says:

      “You don’t use science to prove you’re right, you use science to become right.” –xkcd

      • tekHedd says:

        OK, so it’s an approximate quote. :)


        • Matiir says:

          doesn’t matter any reference to xkcd is a good one in my book lol

  6. wulff says:

    I’m hearing reports that just when the rapture was supposed to begin, a funny looking man wearing a fez and a bow-tie were seen jumping into a blue police box. Can anyone confirm this?

    • stylusmobilus says:

      Not exactly, but I can add that (apparently) a large silver salt and pepper shaker tumbled down a set of stairs at the local civic centre a few days ago.

      • Thomas L. Nielsen says:

        Coincidence? I think not…..

        Regards & all, rAmen and Aarrr…

        Thomas L. Nielsen
        TARDIS maintenance workshop

    • Omnipotent Zombie says:

      Is that a Dr. Who reference?..

  7. Randy says:

    Did you hear that Camping is now saying 5/21 was a “spiritual rapture” as opposed to a real one (um….yeah). When the “real” one happens in October, the “saved” will be wisked “up there” then. Hmmmm…..I wonder what the excuse will be in October. Waiting for santajeebus to have one last birthday? God wants to see one last season of South Park? Or perhaps he will just give this one to the Mayans?

    Collector of Raptured Pool Thermometers

    • Matiir says:

      the videos concerning Campings excuse about this “invisible rapture” (I shit you not, that is what he called it) can be found on you tube. Very amusing! So be careful everyone we are being judged RIGHT NOW! lol

    • Keith says:

      I wish that idiot Camping would change his name to something biblical. He is giving us gays a bad name. Incidentally, he stated quite categorically during a television interview something to the effect that “it’s not use trying to interview me after the 21st because I won’t be here” I can only interpret it to mean that he was saying he wouldn’t be here physically, unless he means absent mentally: he’d be right about that.

      • Br. Smee, OOS says:

        TAKE HEED AND HEAR ALL YE PEOPLE! A PROFIT HAS RISEN FROM AMONG THE BELOVED OF THE NOODLY ONE (PBUH)! Keith has surely shown himself prescient and blessed among all Pastafarians. Clearly, he foretold the fate of the infidel Camping, for lo, a cerebrovascular accident hath smitten the false prophet Camping and struck him dumb, as Keith, the true prophet of The FSM, PBUH hath written! Oh, tell us, great prophet, who among the infidels will be the next to fall?

        Brother Smee, Oblates of the One Semolina

        PS No, I didn’t post this just to stroke Keith’s ego

  8. lolhoofd says:

    lol @ big guy
    Google polic ?
    google isent the internet, they cant remove sites nor arest ppl for mimicing u

    if they coud they shud have arest u from troling our site


    • Big Guy says:

      The Google Police is a covert organization, a branch of the CIA, FBI, and KMA. They are on your trail, my little pasta heads, and when they apprehend you they will stone you to death, just like in good Ole Testicles days. God has spoken, and your doom is sealed, you rotten-to-the-core athiest scum. Google, Google, Google, Giggle…Bwah ha ha ha ha. I celebrate because my Victory on this form is cumming…er…coming soon.

      • Google police says:

        Fear me, for I am on your trail, fake Big Guy!
        (…and you better watch yourself too, lolhoofd)

        • Big Guy says:

          I do not fear you Google Police. You are a bunch of bureaucratic, bumbling, bastards. I know what the CIA and FBI are, but what is the KMA?

          I’ll continue to post on this form until bin Laden is ressurected. Fat chance of that, he was shot in the eye and buried at sea.

          Big Guy Clone #3

        • lolhoofd says:

          ooh noes! the police! *runs away like 5year old lite girl*

Leave a Reply