Bored with trees, telephone poles, and tacos, Jesus shows up on Walmart receipt.

Looks more like Mohammad to me. Click to embiggen.

So here we go again with Jesus showing up in a random inanimate object. This time it’s a receipt for Walmart which Jacob Simmons and Gentry Lee Sutherland just happened to notice appeared to have a face on it after being tossed on the floor and walked on.

The following Wednesday, the couple had just come home from a church service when Simmons spotted the receipt on the floor of Sutherland’s apartment. He says the receipt had changed.

“I was leaving the kitchen and I just looked on the floor, and it was like it was looking at me,” Simmons said.

A dark gray mark on the receipt seems to show two eyes, a nose and a mouth in a thickly bearded face.

“Then the more you look at it, the more it looked like Jesus, and it was just shocking, breathtaking,” Simmons said.

via Couple Sees Jesus In Walmart Receipt – Greenville News Story – WYFF Greenville.

You can see a pic of the miracle receipt over there on the right. I see a face, but it doesn’t look all that Jesusy to me, or at least it’s not the traditional Anglo-Saxon depiction most folks flip the fuck out over. Perhaps that means it really is Jesus! If it is, he has one seriously fucked up nose. And that left ear! How far back is that thing located on his head??

But this is no ordinary couple of religious folks blindly accepting what their eyes are showing them. No, they did some research to ensure it was the Real Deal:

Simmons said he called the store to ask what could have made the mark.

“They said the only way you could really get it black was to put heat on it,” Simmons said.

The couple says they did nothing to make the face appear on the receipt.

“We just feel like it’s a blessing that God showed it to us and opened our eyes. And we just feel like we should share the blessing God gave to us to everybody else,” Sutherland said.

Because the clerks at Walmart are experts on pareidolia. Just looking at the picture I’d be willing to bet water was involved combined with a little pressure from someone walking on it.

But assuming it is Jesus, I again have to ask just what the nature of the blessing is supposed to be? What, exactly, does a crude image of Jesus on a Walmart receipt bestow on someone other than an opportunity to be an attention whore? Has it cured them of cancer or caused an amputated limb to regrow? Or is it just a warning that God is closely monitoring their purchasing habits? Perhaps he disapproves of them shopping at Walmart, but they’re misinterpreting what it’s supposed to mean!

Someone should warn them. That God fellow can be tricky at times.

29 thoughts on “Bored with trees, telephone poles, and tacos, Jesus shows up on Walmart receipt.

  1. Wal-mart uses heat-based printers, like 99% of all retail outlets. All it takes to make that is a black and white image on paper and a heat lamp.
    If they had that picture on a paper pamphlet laying over the receipt and it was exposed to the morning/afternoon sun through a window, it could easily create that image.

    Here is one I just made of Forker, Devine Overlord of my kitchen silverware.

  2. But it is Jesus. We are seeing the Second Coming. Don’t you see? He’s returned to us as receipt — symbolic of the debt he paid for our sins.

    Sure, go ahead and laugh. I bet you won’t still be laughing when you “check out” of “life’s super-store” only to meet Jesus and discover that “payment is still due”!

  3. Hi Les,

    … I’m bored mainly with atheist blogs that criticize Christianity but can’t back up their views with logic and reason.

    I’m not sure what the title of your blog is supposed to imply: “Stupid Evil Bastard” Is Jesus supposed to be stupid and evil? Are you supposed to be this, or is all society stupid and evil?

    Anyway, I’d like to offer you a friendly challenge to come to my blog to refute an article I believe proves God’s existence philosophically:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the basic ideas. All you need is some truth on your side – which I’m quite certain you don’t have.

    If you feel up to the challenge come to my blog and show everyone that atheism isn’t stupid. If you don’t feel up to the challenge, some kind of response would be appreciated anyway.

    Regards,

    Rick

  4. Howdy Rick.

    Boring crap abut Ayn Rand does not constitute “proof” of god’s existence.

    And if you knew anything about science you’d speak of ‘evidence’ not ‘proof’.

  5. Looks like kinda like Greg Laden with his pornstache. Eyes are a little too detailed, I call fraud. Someone who was bored and inventive might have worked out a way to draw on the receipts by heating up a piece of silverware, scratch-board stylus nib, etc. with a candle or lighter just enough to trigger the darkening.

  6. I’m bored mainly with atheist blogs that criticize Christianity but can’t back up their views with logic and reason.

    What do you call my reply to this article? I explained how simple the image is to create by the average person, even accidentally. I even went so far as to MAKE an image as proof of concept. It was a quickie 30-second experiment but it provided very good proof (evidence, actually) of how the image was made (holding a filter over the paper and applying heat). Here is the image again: http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p169/turbo617/temp/P7180002.jpg

    Philosophy is an opinion, science is proof.
    philosophy |fəˈläsəfē|
    noun ( pl. -phies)
    • a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

    science |ˈsīəns|
    noun
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

    What I find particularly hilarious about the “article” you linked to is the following quote;

    Among intellectual atheists, the laws of logic are about as popular as pork chops at a bar mitsva.

    My friend, science is based entirely around logic. If a suggested theory that explains something is illogical then its either easily disproved (See global warming) through experimentation and observation or dismissed as bunk (See String theory).
    So, Rick, buddy, pal, compadre, the opinion of one person, Ayn Rand, does not affect science, logic or identity. Science is a cooperation between many people, many ideas and endless experimentation to discover the truth. And even when the “truth” is discovered, its never closed against being disproved or modified by further experimentation and observation.

    Saying “This (Pick your anecdotal opinion) proves (Pick your imaginary friend) exists.” is simply moronic and is in no way scientific. All you’re saying is “I don’t know, therefore (Pick your imaginary friend) did it. The End.”

  7. Les:
    Much as I’d love to see you pummel Rick over the head with his own beloved weapons of logic and reason, from reading his own blog it is apparent that it would be of little use. He believes so firmly in his own conclusions that nothing anyone can say or do will convince him otherwise. And from what I read, he makes a pretty broad ‘leap of ‘faith’ from “some people have had NDE experinces” to “this proves that there is a loving god”. The one does not prove the other.

  8. “this proves that there is a loving god”

    Murdering the innocent first born sons of everyone in Egypt, not to mention murdering everyone on the planet a little while before that, or doing nothing to prevent his very own son’s murder, is loving?

    So, lets use Rick’s favorite thing, logic. (Copy and paste time!)

    God exists.
    God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
    A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
    An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
    An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
    A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
    If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
    Evil exists (logical contradiction)

    The Bible’s very own descriptions of evil (The snake in Eden, hell, Lucifer, God murdering children) proves that if the the Christian God exists he/she/it is either NOT omnipotent or NOT loving.

  9. Les,

    I offer you proof of God’s existence. Look up the definition of proof and you’ll see it has to do with convincing evidence.

    If you find the article linked to has errors of logic, reason or evidence, you are welcome to come and refute it. If you can’t refute it, it stands as convincing evidence and proof.

    Let me know your answer. Will you take me up on my challenge or not?

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

    Waiting,

    Rick

  10. Rick wrote:

    Hi Les,

    … I’m bored mainly with atheist blogs that criticize Christianity but can’t back up their views with logic and reason.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re suggesting that I’ve never backed up my views on Christianity with logic and/or reason. Just out of curiosity, how many of the 7,000+ entries here at SEB have you read before coming to that conclusion? Or are you just painting with a broad brush and going off an assumption?

    I don’t expect you to have read all of the entries here before trying to engage me, but it would be nice if you poked around a bit to get an idea of who I am before whipping that brush out.

    I’m not sure what the title of your blog is supposed to imply: “Stupid Evil Bastard” Is Jesus supposed to be stupid and evil? Are you supposed to be this, or is all society stupid and evil?

    Ah, you have to go all the way back to January of 2005 to find the answer to that question:

    It was reading the newspaper that eventually brought out the name. It had been full of stories that day that simply pissed me off and I turned to someone, I don’t recall who, and said something like, “Ya know, based on the stories in today’s paper, these people must think I’m some sort of stupid evil bastard. The politicians think I’m stupid enough to believe the bullshit their shoveling. The religious nuts think I’m evil because I don’t believe in their fucking fairy tale and I play games like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and/or video games. And if I speak up and complain about being perceived this way then I’m just being a bastard on top of it all.” I believe the jocular reply I got was: “Well, aren’t you?”

    So it’s a ironic self-reference of sorts. Plus it amuses me. Plus plus it helps to keep the easily offended away. At some point I’ll get around to adding that to the “About SEB” tab at the top of the page. It’ll only have taken almost 10 years to do it.

    Anyway, I’d like to offer you a friendly challenge to come to my blog to refute an article I believe proves God’s existence philosophically:

    I read your article and it is interesting. My understanding of philosophy is admittedly limited and I’ve never spent a lot of time studying the principles of formal logic. I have, at best, a layman’s understanding (which is still probably more than the average person’s) so I don’t know how much of a challenge I would be. Perhaps you’d be better off challenging the likes of Daniel Dennett if you really want to have your ideas tested.

    That said, your article makes several claims that I would consider questionable. For example, in what little I’ve studied on logic the claim that “universal truth and validity must exist in order for formal logic to work” is not one I’ve encountered before. It’s also interesting that you appear to be using “categorical syllogism” as the foundation of your argument. As I understand it that’s considered obsolete compared to first-order predicate logic and sentential logic and has been for some time now. You also seem to be fixated on Ayn Rand and appear to be suggesting that all atheists adhere to her views on logic, philosophy, and so on which is not the case.

    In fact, the reliance on Randian atheists in your article is one huge strawman. Particularly in the second section where you claim that atheists have to reject Quantum Mechanics in order to preserve our worldview. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I have no problem with Quantum Mechanics and find the topic endlessly fascinating. The Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Entanglement have never given me cause to question my stance as an atheist and I’m not at all clear as to why it should.

    Then you jump all the way over to Near Death Experiences (NDE) as some sort of proof of a spiritual dimension. I’ve done my fair share of reading up on the topic and I remain unconvinced that NDEs are anything other than a completely natural occurrence of a brain in the process of oxygen starvation.

    Finally your conclusion, given the above, just made me laugh. Perhaps I’m just stupid (always a possibility), but I don’t see any validity in your argument. The jumps from one subject to another don’t seem to have any connection.

    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the basic ideas. All you need is some truth on your side – which I’m quite certain you don’t have.

    If you feel up to the challenge come to my blog and show everyone that atheism isn’t stupid.

    This made me laugh too. So long as we’re tossing challenges around, I’d love to hear your explanation as to what Blessing was bestowed upon the owners of the receipt this entry was originally about. They clearly feel they were blessed, but I’m hard pressed to tell in what way.

  11. Oh look! Rick’s second comment got stuck in the queue because he apparently can’t decide which email address he wants to use. Hopefully he’s settled on one so his comments won’t get stuck in the queue again.

    Richard Warden wrote:

    Les,
    I offer you proof of God’s existence. Look up the definition of proof and you’ll see it has to do with convincing evidence.
    If you find the article linked to has errors of logic, reason or evidence, you are welcome to come and refute it. If you can’t refute it, it stands as convincing evidence and proof.

    See my reply just above. I find a lot of it questionable and unconvincing, but that’s just my humble opinion. As a proof it needs a lot of work.

    But I’m flattered you’re devoting so much attention to me.

  12. To: Susan, Data, Anon, Julian and Tim
    You are close, but missing a key point. It may look like those people, but they aren’t the divine avatars of an omnipotant god. So the coincidental forces of the universe won’t align to put their faces on a walmart receipt–only Jesus.

    To: Les
    Picasso is one of the most moving painters of the last hundred years, showing all manner of uncomfortable emotions in his works through the use of uncomfortable reconstructions. And you criticize the drawing skills of the divine Him in whose image he was made as he puts his image on a receipt?

    To: Moloch
    You at least understand the proper working of the divine forces of the universe. While I personally reject the holy authority of the god of your silverware drawer, you at least brought something godlike to the Table.

    To: Rick
    Joking aside, that article is just a modern rewrite of St. Anselm’s proof of God’s Existence, with the addition of insults and the use of the ever popular “I spoke to several people who said X which means that everybody who has beliefs of those people also believe Y”

    The basic flaw of the article you link to is “There is something we don’t understand, and my prior definition of science and logic and such says that can’t exist so I must be right.”

    Zeno proposed the same absolute truth with his Dichotomy paradox, and aside from the arrow sticking out of his chest has only ever been proven wrong with math.

  13. I would comment on the Jesus image, but these are getting sort of old. There is only so much that one can say about people with delusions of apparition; if these guys were Elvis fans, instead of Christians, they would claim it was an image of Elvis. If they were UFO buffs they would claim it was part of some sort of UFO-Walmart conspiracy. It doesn’t particularly look like Elvis, or like a UFO, but it doesn’t look particularly like traditional depictions of Jesus either. Granted, traditional Western depictions of Jesus are about as accurate as the doctrines and faith claims of traditional Christian churches, but nevertheless.

    As for the “challenge,” and without really getting to deep into this as I have no interest in looking at Rick’s site, I did notice one thing that I thought amusing… Les responded…

    Particularly in the second section where you claim that atheists have to reject Quantum Mechanics in order to preserve our worldview. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I have no problem with Quantum Mechanics and find the topic endlessly fascinating. The Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Entanglement have never given me cause to question my stance as an atheist and I’m not at all clear as to why it should.

    Having finished Stephen Hawking’s last book a few weeks back, where he uses quantum mechanics as part of a larger argument for why God probably does not exist, and why God is certainly a useless explanation for the creation of our universe, I have to chuckle at this argument. Even if one disagrees with Hawking’s assertions, the notion that atheism is not compatible with quantum mechanics is Christarded.

    But this is not new. Spiritualists like Deepak Chopra have tried to use the vagaries and public ignorance of the complicated science of quantum mechanics to justify any range of pseudo-scientific spiritual bunk. Suffice it to say that few actual experts in the field seem to be Christian bloggers or Hindu New Age gurus.

    Funny that the Bible says nothing about Quantum Mechanics, by the way. If I did not know any better I would say that it was written by people who didn’t know anything about the nature of the universe, aside from what was already common knowledge for that primitive day and age.

  14. I still think we’re witnessing the Second Coming of Christ. Jesus has returned to us as a sales receipt and you guys are just making fun of it. I’m appalled.

  15. Les,

    >>Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re suggesting that I’ve never backed up my views on Christianity with logic and/or reason.

    – No, the comment was a generalization. I’ve found that high-profile atheist bloggers often talk a big talk when it comes to logic and reason but then run into the woodwork when called out to defend their beliefs. The American Atheist No-God-Blog went so far as to delete my comments that challenged their best and brightest mind to refute my article:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

    PZ Meyes, who postures as an atheist guru, censored my comment referencing his debate dodging reputation. If he has some logic to offer, why doesn’t he come and show it? The reason is simple. Atheistic materialism ultimately doesn’t have a logical foundation. You’ve made some comments, but it seems you are declining my challenge to come to my blog and refute my article, is that correct?

    By the way, can you explain the title of your blog, Stupid Evil Bastard?

    Rick

  16. Wow Richard, you really are a moronic condescending fuck with delusions of intellect aren’t you?

  17. Richard Warden wrote:

    – No, the comment was a generalization. I’ve found that high-profile atheist bloggers often talk a big talk when it comes to logic and reason but then run into the woodwork when called out to defend their beliefs. The American Atheist No-God-Blog went so far as to delete my comments that challenged their best and brightest mind to refute my article

    If I had to guess I’d say they deleted your comments because you have this habit of including the link in every comment you submit which pretty much makes you a spammer. This latest one is the third fucking time you’ve included it. We know about it, there’s no need to keep repeating it. Though it could also be your apparent inability to leave a comment on the proper thread. I had to move your latest from a thread about a Pastafarian license photo back to the thread where you first started spewing your nonsense. (I also moved Julian’s so it would stay in context.)

    And since when am I a high profile atheist?

    PZ Meyes, who postures as an atheist guru, censored my comment referencing his debate dodging reputation. If he has some logic to offer, why doesn’t he come and show it? The reason is simple. Atheistic materialism ultimately doesn’t have a logical foundation.

    PZ Myers (note the correct spelling of his name) doesn’t posture as anything of the sort. He doesn’t claim to be the final authority on atheism nor any kind of leader. I can only speculate on his motives, but if I had to guess I’d say he probably took a look at your article and found it laughable enough not to bother with. He gets challenges like yours all the time and if he bothered to pay them all the same amount of attention he’d never have time to do anything else.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the reason so many people won’t bother with you isn’t because you’ve come up with the ultimate argument, but because your argument is flawed six ways to Sunday? Half of it is a strawman and the other half is nonsense.

    You’ve made some comments, but it seems you are declining my challenge to come to my blog and refute my article, is that correct?

    Comments which I see you have decided to ignore along with everyone else who’s left a comment. There’s no need for me to refute your argument because there really isn’t much of an argument in that article. The comments I’ve made here are refutation enough. Plus there are already plenty of people tearing your argument apart at your blog.

    But I know the game you’re playing at here. If I don’t deign you worthy of wasting time on you’ll go back to your little blog and claim victory. Hey, if it helps you to sleep at night then go right ahead. It’ll just be one more delusion on top of many you seem to hold. There are more important things for me to waste my time on. Like World of Warcraft or watching grass grow.

    Oh noes! I haz been defeeted by the ultimatz Christian logic!

    By the way, can you explain the title of your blog, Stupid Evil Bastard?

    And with that last sentence you’ve shown yourself for the clueless fucking idiot you are. I can only assume you read just the first part of my comment, just enough to quote, and ignored the rest because you want me to play in your sandbox. If you had read the entire comment I left you you’d already know the answer to that question because I’ve already explained it to you. Of course, the fact that you left your latest missive in a thread other than the one you started all this on probably shows you’re just not as bright as you’d like us to think you are.

    If you’re not going to bother to fully read and address the comments I leave for you here then why should I assume you’ll do so at your own blog? You’re either incompetent or a cherry picker. Not that it matters as this is at the end of my comment which means you probably haven’t read it. You probably stopped as soon as I said I wasn’t going to go to your blog and rushed off to declare victory!

  18. That picture looks sort of ogre-ish to me. I think it’s Hagrid from the Harry Potter series. It’s a sign to go see the new Potter movie which just opened this week.

  19. Does this mean that Wal-Mart will only accept returns on the moring of the third day?

  20. You’ve made some comments, but it seems you are declining my challenge to come to my blog and refute my article, is that correct?

    Okay, I don’t know why I’m doing this…but here goes.
    I’m paraphrasing what you say for context, then commenting on what the blog says.


    Introduction
    “What is the meaning of life. Let’s look at it, and answer some questions.”

    Okay, fine…introductory stuff.


    Sound Logic is based on Universal Truth…
    “Here’s what logic is, with some history and some lessons from Logic 101.”
    “Some people didn’t like these rules.”
    “Let’s insult atheists for not being logical. Here is some hearsay discussions I had.”
    “Back to Logic 101.”

    This section presents a few basic principles of logic, and otherwise just insults people and claims victory against them.


    Quantum Physics Undermines…
    “Something from Stanford says that quantum mechanics is different then Newtonian physics”
    “Some of quantum mechanics is really weird to us 3 dimensional critters”
    “Quotes by people who use or reject scientific principles towards their own ends.”
    “Claim general victory because the people misused things to their own ends.”
    “Atheists who desire to justify their beliefs logically must come to terms with QM, but many choose to live in denial.”
    “Some scientists have proven things, that I choose to show proves that God exists.”

    Okay, this is really some sort of basis of your article, and it contains nothing that is proof of anything.

    You really push that some people reject quantum mechanics because it makes them unhappy. Tough shit for them. It exists, and is giving teenagers bad grades across the globe. And is giving late night philosophers headaches as they try to figure out what happens when you turn on a flashlight while moving at lightspeed.

    None of their quotes or opinions has anything to do with atheism or objective study of science…except that some atheists can be closed-minded idiots, too.

    So we throw them out and go onto…quantum mechanics is way weird.

    You are correct…it IS way weird. And you are correct that there are things that don’t work in a strictly 3D world. Scientists who try to figure it out, normally take a dozen extra dimensions for the math to work out–and since we can’t experiment in 15+ dimensions, it’s hard to test.

    Still, there are teams of people trying to figure out what’s really going on, using strings, and extra dimensions, and at least three phases of matter that I can’t even describe. And they show that nature shall not get caught creating and destroying matter and energy…time may actually be discrete.

    Okay…These are all cool ideas and scientists work on quantum mechanics problems. what’s next?

    Somebody in Poland and the world show that information is the bedrock of reality, not the laws of physics?

    That’s a gross oversimplification, which I think you’re then trying to turn into “information is god” which is quite a jump. Points for effort, but as valuable as the “such and such law of thermodynamics proves that God created the universe” logic.


    NDE studies verify harmony of laws of logic and quantum mechanics
    We start to use the St. Anselm approach…
    “if there’s something bigger, it must be god.”
    “Quotes by people who died”
    “Eyewitness accounts of NDE’s are verifiable”
    “Somebody has a youtube video of an NDE”
    “Somebody was blind and could see things while dead”
    “NDE fits a with a biblical quote, which I’ll provide here.”
    “If atheists were right, we wouldn’t have free will.”
    “NDE’s fit with why we have free will.”

    Okay, this is just funny.
    You talk about the rules of logic so much at the beginning, then go for “Elephants tails are like rope, therefore all elephants are made of rope.”

    You know what…I’m going to, for a second, grant you everything.
    All these leaps are 100% accurate and your logic is irrefutable.
    So…what God are you left with? One who exists in 15 dimensions, of which we can only perceive 3, and which follows a set of quantum rules that we don’t understand. In which of those 15 dimensions am I going to hell forever, for coveting somebody’s wife? In which of those 15 dimensions do I get redemption because God self-replicated to 3 dimensions, only to be disassembled a few years later?

    I’m going to stop here…I really can’t read the drivel of this article anymore…but I can assure you it’s more quotes of people who said something you can “get” them with and examples of people who use spurious logic to achieve their ends…unlike you.

    My final comment…I’m actually a Christian. My belief in God comes from faith–a faith developed over several years and refined to what I believe now.

    Les does not have this faith…and I do not attempt to convince him that he’s wrong. As an aside, he also likes the wrong toppings on his pizza. I do not attempt to prove that my pizza toppings are better, or better fit the quantum ideal of the rational materialist. I order him his own pizza, and we shoot zombies on weekends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.