i can see the potential for humor in it, but at the same time see many fallacies with the arguement Jesus is presenting that suggests those who created the parody really have no clue about the reality of being a christian versus the bible basher who pollutes the word and name .

there's no specific definition of heaven or hell, there's even the option for interpretation that there is no hell, just eternal death or eternal life in a heavenly body, comparing life without Gd as the same fate as being cast on a pyre for the dead and diseased.

Jesus had a clear and direct understanding of who He and Gd were and would answer in a parable rather than one line repetitive statements, that weren't even a factor when he was walking the roads...the parody has potential, but if they spent more time presenting Jesus as he was described by people who walked with him, it would have been a more...entertaining read that could have led to some good discussion about philosophy versus faith, rather than just another rehashed version of christian bashing.

both socrates and the bible stories have a lot to teach man about being human, with or without the dogma...but dumbing down one to exalt the other doesn't do either archetype any justice.

I agree. Jesus could have been portrayed much better.

Still... I laughed.

Jesus would never say that war and plauge come from the devil. Those are the words of dumbfuck athiests. Any TRUE Christian who understands the religion would tell you that God created everything including that.

just finished reading it... it was really fucking retarded. An Angel is an Angel... duh... its like asking what a man is.. a fucking man.

Wait. Aren't the Pestilence and War two of the Four Horsemen? Don't they come from Hell? I could be wrong, but I thought they came from Hell after the seven trumpets sound.

who created hell?

I understand your logic. God created Hell and all therein. I'm just stating that I thought the Four Horsemen spewed forth from Hell.

Absolute Athiests are as bad as absolute christians....

Exactly. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.

"They look like people except they have wings."

Yeah, real accurate portrayal of Jesus. I suppose if you haven't done any deeper research into Christianity other than reading Hallmark cards and Jack Chick tracts...


Where to start. Jesus never claimed the Devil created anything, it's well recognized that the only difference between angels and gods is that angels do not seek worship, the Bible explicitly mentions other gods and the supernatural as existing, and describes God as sending plagues and such to punish mankind, nothing in the Bible actually confirms the concept of Hell at all...


I guess if you can get off on attacking a strawman and making yourself feel big that way, then yeah, that was amusing.


Socrates himself was kind of over-rated anyway. I wonder if the person writing this shit even actually read all of his diatribes.



Edit: Lawlz. I did a Google on this guy, it turns out he's a eugenics nuts who ran in Tennessee in 2004 on a platform of bringing back racial segregation. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=166463

your fucking mother, who do you think? in the sense aiethists could be fundamentalists, but where do you draw the fucking line between christians and non belivers? what has to be done to be set apart? the argument between how a christian and how an aiethist believes as fucking apples and oranges.

Are you asking me a question or making a statement?

What did you even say here?

i think the point was that fundamentals, no matter what they believe can be as stubborn and dangerous as any other person driven by personal belief, even if they believe in nothing.

when people behave in horrible ways to make their points, nothing sets them apart from another hateful person.

That's really quite funny. I just read a really long article about Creationism vs. Evolution and they were talking about the 'strawmen attacks'.

both, balboa. god isnt neccesary in existance. morality is all in your head. im trying to be a good person and its all mindset.

Thank you, Pyrric!

Something besides a raw atheistic explanation is necessary in existence, although it certainly does not have to be God.


I think it's a little pre-emptive to say morality is all in your head. These things are universally perceived, and we can all agree on names for them that fit the things as we perceive them. They affect how we act and have a real meaning in the world around us. While emotions certainly aren't physical, what is the reasoning that everything that is not physical must not be real except "in our heads"?