home
RSS
What's wrong with 'Black Jesus'?
A Christian group's anger over the trailer for an upcoming TV show, "Black Jesus," seems out of place, says Jay Parini.
July 30th, 2014
09:26 AM ET

What's wrong with 'Black Jesus'?

Opinion by Jay Parini, special to CNN

(CNN) - I've just been watching the trailer for "Black Jesus," a show that will premiere on August 7 on the Cartoon Network during its child-unfriendly late-night spot, which they call Adult Swim.

Already at least one Christian group has begun to lobby the network to cancel the show, regarding its contents as blasphemous. (Cartoon Network is owned by Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN.)

From what I can tell, the series is a bit of a spoof, with some foul language. The general notion seems clever: A guy who thinks he is Jesus, who might even be Jesus, lives in a poor neighborhood of Compton, California. He's got a ragged band of followers - they look like winos and potheads - who follow him around with lots of bantering.

The scenes shown in the trailer seem relatively funny, and it appears that nobody is quite sure whether this is a madman who thinks he is Jesus or maybe the Lord himself come back in a strange outfit and, indeed, black skin.

Is this offensive? The jury will have to be out until we see whole episodes, but in concept—particularly if the rest of the show is like the trailer—it does not seem so.

Let me explain.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Black issues • Christianity • Media • Opinion • Prejudice • Race • TV

soundoff (1,017 Responses)
  1. unsername1

    Nothing is wrong, it's just a movie; I love to see Whoopi playing virgin Mary.

    July 30, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
    • ausphor

      Gary Coleman as the baby Jesus, I think we have a hit!!

      July 30, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
      • unsername1

        pick the birthplace, New York or Chicago!!

        July 30, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • LaBella

          They can use "Jesus Just Left Chicago" by ZZ Top as the theme song; hey, hey.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          It would have to be Toledo, Detroit or Cleveland...

          July 30, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Ru Paul as jesus

        July 30, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • Reality

        And the twelve apostles minus Judas- the offensive team of the Redskins or in this case, the Blackskins!

        And Gabriel? LeBron of course!!!

        July 30, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
      • bostontola

        Gary Coleman as baby Jesus would be a miracle indeed!

        July 30, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
      • Vic

        I just saw this thread.

        Gary Coleman passed away in 2010.

        July 30, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          We can resurrect Garry Coleman any old time we want, you know like in you book of silly. Look how many times, OMG they killed Kenny.

          July 31, 2014 at 7:33 am |
  2. Robert Brown

    “Jesus met with wh.o.res and bartenders (publicans) and all sorts of marginal folks.”

    Hey Jay,

    Publicans were tax collectors.

    July 30, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      You are correct, sir.

      July 30, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
    • LaBella

      Yeah, that is kind of a glaring mistake.

      July 30, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
  3. ausphor

    James Earl Jones, voice of God, Morgan Freeman voice of Jesus and Eddie Murphy as the Holy Spirit (and Donkey), cool.

    July 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Darth Vador... voice of 'god'... same thing

      July 30, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
      • ausphor

        Loki
        One of my all time comedy routines is Bill Cosby's Noah. "Who is this really?" "What's a cubit?" I don't think Topher would get it.

        July 30, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Ricky Gervais' Noah routine was the best

          July 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          If you haven't seen the comedy bit Ricky Gervais does on Noah's Ark... It is hilarious and worth tracking down.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • ausphor

          Ddog
          Agree Ricky nailed it also. Topher can be hysterical in his own ignorant way but he seems to have chickened out when asked to give his rant on the subject.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • LaBella

          RG's bit is brilliant.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggQqUyLrCM

          July 30, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • LaBella

      Well, Eddie's brother Charlie is going to be on the show 'Black Jesus', does that count?

      July 30, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
  4. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    All hail Super-Fly Satan... He may look like a 70's pimp... but you jive turkeys should still beware of his evil ways... he's Lucifer in platform shoes... Super-Fly Satan. Coming to Adult Swim in October following Mormon Adventure Time, starring the original white native Americans.

    July 30, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    The doctrine of the incarnation demonstrate neatly how purely human and made up Christianity (indeed all religion) is. The idea of Jesus being a god incarnate and part of the three faceted Christian God was by no means settled in the early Christian church. Views ran the full spectrum from Jesus being just a man, to both a man and a god to a pure god, who just seemed to be a man. Adoptionism, for example, was a belief of the early Christians that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and the Son of God only at his baptism by John the Baptist. On the other hand, Docetism held that he was a god from inception and never really became human. He only appeared to be a human being, almost like a corporeal ghost.

    If you reflect on it for a moment, you can see their dilemma and the reason for the full spectrum of views. The whole idea of combining our notion of a god with a human being in the one personage meant they pretty much had to make it all up. And I mean that in the strict sense of the word. They had to develop the doctrine from scratch. They were cutting new cloth. What does it even mean for a god to “become flesh?” Just how deeply did Jesus get into his role as a human being and how much of his “godliness” did he retain? Did Jesus experience pain and a normal male puberty? Did he mastu.rbate as a teenager? Could he have fathered a child if he wished? At what point in his development as a child did he realize he was a part of the Holy Trinity? I guess modern theologians would be arguing over whether he had normal DNA and electromagnetic activity in his brain. That is the difficulty with incorporating the supernatural into any real life situation. You then have to work out exactly where the real world ends and the supernatural one starts.

    The matter was eventually settled by vote at a series of meetings of early church leaders, the most important of which was the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It was decided that Jesus would be considered both fully man and God, “begotten from, but not created by God the Father and fully man, getting his flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary.” In other words, they simultaneously answered everything and nothing.

    Think about this for a moment. The matter of Jesus’ incarnation and his exact nature were decided by popular vote. Jesus himself never said anything about it, God never showed up at any ecu.menical council to advise on the matter and, for those who consider it relevant, the Bible is totally silent on the issue. A few dozen pre-Dark Ages theologians made it up.

    This is how all Christian theology develops and evolves. It is all made up. To the extent church theologians “research” an issue, they simply look to the writings of earlier theologians who made something up. To the extent those earlier theologians researched anything, they looked to the writings of even earlier theologians who made something up. But at some point, no matter how far back we go, no matter how many theologians we pass through and no matter how honest, intelligent, pious or well lettered the original propagator of the idea was, at some point it is simply made up. Fabricated, albeit with the best of intentions and with the complete self-confidence that the fabrication is correct.

    Yes, the incarnation of Christ shows neatly how religion is all made up. Mind candy for those too weak to face the uncertainties of life and the certainty of death.

    - Colin

    July 30, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Excellent take on the situation.

      July 30, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
  6. Doris

    In the mean time amid the fun and games over something on the Cartoon Network, Huffington Post reports that children were killed in their sleep last night while at a UN designated shelter in Gaza. The UN had warned Israel 17 times that the school was a UN shelter. A statement by the UN Reliefs & Work Agency Commissioner-General states that "We have analysed fragments, examined craters and other damage. Our initial assessment is that it was Israeli artillery that hit our school, in which 3,300 people had sought refuge. We believe there were at least three impacts. It is too early to give a confirmed official death toll. But we know that there were multiple civilian deaths and injuries including of women and children and the UNRWA guard who was trying to protect the site. These are people who were instructed to leave their homes by the Israeli army."

    There is no excuse, no justification for this. Pure barbarism on the part of Israel.

    July 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • James XCIX

      Doris –

      You seem to be implying the Israelis targeted the school knowing there were only civilians inside. What do you imagine would be the motivation for such an attack?

      July 30, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • Doris

        That is what the UNRWA is stating, not just implying. As for motivation, I would have to guess Israel is trying to make an obvious "show of might" example as quickly as possible – to strike as much fear as they can into Gaza by whatever means. igaftr makes a good point.

        July 30, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Doris

          abc news reports (via AP) "The U.S. didn't assign responsibility for the shelling, but Gaza officials say Israel struck the school, killing 15 and wounding 90. Israeli's military said it fired back after soldiers were targeted by mortar rounds launched from the vicinity of the school."

          In the vicinity of the school?? Most of the Gaza strip is only three miles wide I think.

          That story should have stressed at the top it was UN officials "saying", not "Gaza officials".

          July 30, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          Doris.
          Considering the fact that the isrealis have some of the toptechnology in their weapons, they do have the ability to be far more precise that then are. They could easily avoid hitting gigantic immobile structures such as schools and hospitals.
          They are purposefully targeting indiscriminately. The weapons they have for the most part are US weapons, very accurate, very precise when they choose to be ( a lot depends on the ammunition they choose to use), and the Isrealis actually modify many of the weapons, making them more efficient and accurate.
          They are choosing to shell indisriminately, thus using terror on the civilian population as a weapon, trying to get the people to get Hamas to back down, thus making them terrorists. I am not excusing Hamas' behavior at all, I just can easily identify the aggressors and oppressors.

          If that was your homeland, and a neighboring country started encroaching on your land, illegally building settlements, then taking over "buffer zones" to protect the new illegal homes, and they starteed occupying more and more of your land, then started restricting your access to move freely, force searches, limit your water access, electricity access, impose their laws on you...I can assure you that I would be a huge thorn in their side whenever I could. They would then use that as an excuse to go even further, but where is their right to the land in the first place...without that original right to the land, they cannot use the resistance of the rightful population as an excuse.
          Isreal has been the aggressors since the beginning, and they have been expanding their borders since 1948.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Doris

          Thanks for the explanation about the weaponry, igaftr. I had suspected as much. And I concur with your assessment. I have talked personally with some living in the restricted areas, some of whom are Christians, and their stories reflect what you are saying, especially on the issues of water access, hospital access, and further encroachment.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • igaftr

          Doris
          Part of the problem, a big part is the peoples at!tudes. Google CNN isrealis cheer...many links to the LIVE brodcast shwoing Isrealis pulling out lawn chairs and cheering the shelling and murder of the civilians in Gaza...sickening.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          From the AP story ...

          "Gaza militants also fired 84 rockets at Israel Wednesday, including more than 26 after the cease-fire was announced, the military said."

          July 30, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • igaftr

          yes topher, Hamas does keep firing rockets. Most are shot down but the Isrealis, and some do land, occasionally injuring or killing someone.
          As I said, I am not excusing that at all, but Hamas is not the aggressors. Isreal has been stealing their land since 1948.
          Isreal has pushed them into a corner, and given them no option but to fight.
          If you put an animal in a cage, do not be surprised that the animal will try to strike you when you get too close.

          If Isreal was serious about wanting peace, they should retreat back to their legal borders.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          igaftr

          "As I said, I am not excusing that at all, but Hamas is not the aggressors."

          Dude ... really?

          "Isreal has been stealing their land since 1948."

          Israel hasn't stolen anyone's land. It was given to them after the war. If anything, it has been Israel that has given those three pieces of land away.

          "Isreal has pushed them into a corner, and given them no option but to fight."

          Israel wants nothing but to live in peace. It is Hamas who has done nothing but try to murder the Jews. In fact, that's their purpose statement in their charter.

          "If Isreal was serious about wanting peace, they should retreat back to their legal borders."

          Israel has been within its legal borders. Texas used to belong to Mexico. If missiles were entering U.S. territory from Mexico City, would you not expect us to act?

          July 30, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Also from the AP story ...

          "Maj. Gen. Sami Turgeman, the head of the army's southern command, said Israel was "a few days" away from destroying the 32 tunnels it has located so far. More than two-thirds of those have been demolished, according to Adelstein, the senior military official."

          More evidence that Hamas is the aggressor ... And ...

          "Hamas could have built two hospitals, 20 schools, 20 clinics and 100 kindergartens with the amount of cement they used to build the tunnels," Turgeman said.

          Gaza militants have fired more than 2,600 rockets toward Israel over the past three weeks, according to the Israeli army. Over the past 23 days, Israeli forces have hit 4,100 targets in Gaza, about one-third connected to rocket launching, a statement said."

          July 30, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Doris

          I agree, igaftr – I don't excuse Hamas one bit. And as I said before on one of these articles, is Palestine represented by the PA or by Hamas? Not being consistently united against the issues of encroachment, denial of basic needs doesn't help their case one bit, regardless of how righteous one might view the Palestinians' plight. That being said, I don't believe an end to this madness will ever be in sight as long as barbarism continues to be met with barbarism. Quite simply Israel proves more and more each day that it is not a civilized society.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Doris

          Nonsense, Topher regarding the issue of encroachment. It's been quite a common occurrence for people to suddenly find their small field plowed over and asked to leave their homes. I've talked with Christians who have had family members die because they were unreasonably detained at checkpoints blocking access to a hospital. You put up walls and restrict people from water and other basic needs and take their land and it'll eventually come back to bite you.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          "Israel hasn't stolen anyone's land. It was given to them after the war. If anything, it has been Israel that has given those three pieces of land away."

          What are you talking about...look at the 1948 borders. Isreal has been expanding since then, they do not give away land, they steal it.
          They build ILLEGAL housing settlement, then claim the land is theirs, then claim a buffer zone around the illegal settlement.
          You are seriously deluded.

          Where are you getting your false information from? You can look at the history and see the borders expanding not shrinking in any way. They not only claim land that is not theirs, but also offshore drilling rights in areas that were never theirs at all.

          They have occupied the gaza, and treat the Palestinians as mud people, as their torah calls any non jew, including you topher.
          Isreal is being protected by the US at every turn, even though Isreal is the aggressor, and are violating many human rights. OPEN YOUR EYES and stop watching fox news.

          I recomend you watch "5 broken cameras"...a dokumentary from the point of view of the Palestinians who are looking at their land from the other side of armed checkpoints...looking at the Isrealis building settlements on their land, and if they even start to appraoch these checkpoints, they get shot...the Isreali sinpers targetted this guy's cameras, shot them off his shoulder.
          Don;t try to tell me Isreal is innocent in the slightest.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Fantastic explanation of what is going on ...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJA0g4ONt5c

          July 30, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          "Gaza militants have fired more than 2,600 rockets toward Israel over the past three weeks, according to the Israeli army. Over the past 23 days, Israeli forces have hit 4,100 targets in Gaza, about one-third connected to rocket launching, a statement said."

          What they are NOT mentioning is the fact that most of Hamas' rockets get shot down, but then the rockets AND the missiles used to shoot them down, then fall into populated areas. How much of that alleged damage is being caused by their own missiles topher...holy crap wake up.

          If you think that those tunnels mean they are the aggressors, you seriously do not understand military strategy at all. If your little town were surrounded, you would be finding any way you could to strike back too.

          Again, I am not excusing hamas at all, but they are tiny when compared to the might and power of the US...who is supporting everything isreal does stating they have a right to defend themselves. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. That is the excuse they are using. The US also blocks all of the UN resolutions condemning Isreal, trying to make them look all shiny when they are criminals.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Doris

          A few of the commenters there Topher had a reaction to that video similar to this one:

          "That was a GREAT explanation.........if you want to understand one side of the problem"

          That it was one-sided was quite obvious.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          "Israel wants nothing but to live in peace"

          You seriously have no idea...they do want to live in peace...and want more land, so they want to live in peace at the expense of their neighbors, and want the neighbors they keep invading to shut up and take it...seriously topher, how can you be that nieve?

          July 30, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
    • igaftr

      The Isrealis keep claiming they (hamas) is "storing weapons nearby" as they did when they shelled the hospital.

      Isreal is NOT defending themselves any more than Hitler was defending himself when he invaded Poland. The are the aggressors, sealed the gaza strip, and are now shooting the fish they imprisoned in the barrel.
      The US will veto anything the UN does that would make Isreal look like the murderers and war criminals they are, and frequntly veto any resolution from the UN against Isreal.

      July 30, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        That's because Revelation talks about the 12 tribes of Israel battling on the fields of Megiddo, not the Palistinians. So the US and Christians everywhere must turn a blind eye to any and all atrocities Gods chosen people commit as they are required for the Christians version of a happy ending, you know, the destruction of mankind and a rapture of the righteous into fluffy cloudy harp land...

        July 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
  7. neverbeenhappieratheist

    This new Jesus may be black, but looking at the photo I can tell his hair isn't...

    July 30, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • jhg45

      Bible does not say how tan he was but according to 1 Cor.11:14 he would not have had long hair.

      July 30, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Yeah, but all the pictures and statues have him with long hair! Sure he was likely a dark skinned jewish man with a decent length beard and short cut hair wrapped in a turban like all the other young jewish men of his day, but that's not the light skinned hippy adonis the Christians really wanted...

        If we had a photograph today of the actual Jesus most Christians would want to bomb him for looking, in their minds, like a terrorist... they certainly wouldn't stop to listen to him.

        July 30, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
  8. Vic

    Oh..no..wait..according to Megyn Kelly, Jesus in the flesh was white, ..LOL. I don't think "Black Jesus" is meant as political, I think it's just a pop culture thing.

    Honestly, I don't have a problem with an image of Jesus wearing so many hats to save people, that's what He came down for, and that's what He did. (John 3:16,17 & Romans 5:6)

    As for sinners—of whom I am Chief, as a Christian, there are two verses in the Bible that describe me best, those are Luke 18:13 & 1 Timothy 1:15. I sit with everybody, unless of course you pull a gun on me, I would RRRUNNN..call 911!

    After all, God can't be mocked. (Galatians 6:7)

    I believe it's all tongue in cheek—nobody beats South Park, LOL.

    John 3:16,17
    "16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." (NASB)

    Romans 5:6
    "6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (NASB)

    Luke 18:13
    "13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’" (NASB)

    1 Timothy 1:15
    "15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (NASB)

    Galatians 6:7
    "7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." (NASB)

    July 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
    • new-man

      I agree completely, Vic and see we shared some of the same points. This was my comment which didn't post so I gave up trying:

      Jesus was accused of hanging out with sinners (oh the horror! *sar.casm*); he was also accused of being a drunkard, blasphemer, bas.tard, heretic, ignorant, demon-possessed, false prophet etc. by the religious leaders of His day.

      The spirit in which the show is done will be revealed in full-time, so no need to prejudge as God Himself is not mocked, as everyone reaps according to what he has sown.

      July 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • ausphor

        Get a room guys, Jesus didn't say it was a sin.

        July 30, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Christians seem to have the same sick mentality as pervy submissives ... "Oh I am a worm. Oh I am a sinner. Oh I am unworthy. Oh punish me. Oh discipline me."

      With a good portion of abused spouse ... "Oh he loves me, that's why he has to punish me. He only hits me because I deserve it. He only hits me because I do wrong. It's my fault he hits me"

      what a sick, sad view of the world.

      July 30, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Lead, follow or get out of the way. The religious are made up of only one type, followers, which is why it's so easy for any charismatic leader to stand up, say something a bunch of people want to hear like "You are so special the creator of the universe knows you, loves you and wants to send you and your loved ones on an all expense paid trip to cloudy puffy fun land! All you have to do is follow me! And don't forget to bring your wallets, this amusement park aint free you know..." and they instantly get a few million sheep ready for fleecing. The list is a long one, from Joseph Smith, John Calvin and Martin Luther to L. Ron Hubbard.

        July 30, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • Reality

      Just more thu-mping from the Great Thu-mper!!

      July 30, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
  9. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    It's the 'American Family Association' complaining... who cares what those christian sharia-law fundie nut-jobs say? Besides other christian jihad extremists...

    July 30, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
  10. No Wake Zone

    Where is this Christian group's anger over Brian having bestiality sex with ever pretty human girl he sees on Family Guy?

    July 30, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      To be fair... they haven't all been pretty.

      July 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
      • LaBella

        Well, he does drink a lot.

        July 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • LaBella

      If Brian were portraying Jesus, you betcha.

      July 30, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • No Wake Zone

        That would be a great episode.

        July 30, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  11. Woody

    "What a bro we have in Jeeeesus".
    Sorry, that's the only line of the song that I know.

    July 30, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
  12. Reality

    What is wrong with Jesus of any color? First and foremost, he is not a god. He was crucified, died and was buried and now after a 2000 year decomposition is being circulated in the many cycles of life.

    July 30, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • new-man

      who is your God Reality?

      July 30, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
      • bostontola

        new-man,
        That's a powerful question. If I define God as that which created me, then God is the universe itself. It doesn't require or desire my worship as far as I can tell.

        There is no indication that something else created the universe with higher intelligence or purpose. All indications I have seen is that intelligence, purpose, life, etc. are emergent phenomena that arise from the natural laws we already know of. We are likely to discover new laws as we explore more, but we can explain what we experience with what we know now. Not proof, just highly plausible explanations. That satisfies me more than supernatural explanations that are inconsistent with what we have discovered.

        July 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • new-man

          boston,
          thanks for given this in-depth thought.
          while trying to stay away from the questions that have been debated countless times here and elsewhere, I cannot help but ask where did the universe get the information to create such deeply complex beings. sincere question.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • new-man

          you could replace "did" with "would" as I don't know where it would get the information... I'm just asking for your thoughts/opinion on this.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • igaftr

          newman
          stop asking inane biased questions.
          There is no evidence anything was "created" implying a creator. There is no evidence of that at all.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          Try going to Diagon Alley and purchasing a magic wand, a good one, and then you can perform all sort of supernatural stuff. You can create a whole fantasy world complete with gods and devils, oh wait you already have that fantasy.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • SeaVik

          new-man – Humans have not determined the answer to your question yet. We have, however, determined that the story of Christianity is inconsistent with our findings.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • bostontola

          new-man,
          That is a great question, and not simple to answer. It comes from very subtle understanding of thermodynamics. The observable (key word) universe came into being and expanded rapidly. This expansion is key to explaining both the mass-energy balance and entropy. It turns out that natural law does explain both. The quantum fluctuations that left their imprint on the cosmic background radiation, contained massive amounts of information. This information has been transformed many times through many natural processes. Life and intelligence are local phenomena of reduced entropy enabled by non-linear, far from equilibrium thermodynamics (this situation is created by our proximity to a huge energy source, the Sun, as well as mass exchange with other bodies in space).

          It is a great question new-man. It even suggests that at bottom, the universe is mathematical, not just describable mathematically. But that moves into philosophical speculation at this point (it may get scientific in the future, but that is an open epistemological question at this point).

          July 30, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • new-man

          boston,
          I actually agree with some of what you've written and see no conflict between God speaking the universe into existence and the scientific description of how "the spoken word lead to" this expansion which is still ongoing.

          Where I disagree to a point is regarding "cosmic background radiation" because it still begs the question, where did the information come from?

          it is quite interesting that the universe can be considered to be mathematical since mathematics is an artificial 'universe' so to speak and mathematical models do not always hold true to reality (why we need rules and constants).

          This is all very interesting boston, and I'd love for you and science to have established and settled the ultimate source of this information. [You already know my answer, and while it may be ridiculed as the easy way out, I'd say why keep searching if you already know the source. What I do not know is scientifically how this was achieved, however that doesn't change the source].
          So, while I am settled with the answer, I also look forward to learning the intricacies of how all this [the universe] came to be.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • bostontola

          new-man,
          The information came from the same place as the mass-energy came from, a quantum fluctuation. You are right that science doesn't know 'why', just that it did.

          Here's something to ponder. The physical universe has a quant.ity of information. If a God created it, that God plus the physical universe at least doubles the information content. That's even harder to do. The natural universe is easier to explain than a God plus a physical universe.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • believerfred

          bostontola
          Your concept of God is the God of Spinoza which fascinated Einstein. The logic in the proof given by Spinoza's Modal Metaphysics confirms your concept. I see this concept as the base understanding of the form and substance of God because it can be evidenced in the natural simply because it is the natural as you just explained it. God and nature are same in that context so either stands alone and there begins his elaborate proof. When we add all the theological anthropomorphism's on top of that we see how man over time, as recorded in the Bible and history presents the revelation of God in man.
          The form and substance of God presents itself as you observed and this can be objectively observed. What rubs skeptics is your use of the word God whereas they feel better for various personal reasons by calling God the unknown or something yet to be discovered by man as NOT supernatural. This they do because from what I have observed they lack a basic understanding of causation. In physics causality demands we infer substance even when mass is absent simply to comply with a given law, as when mass is of invariant quantity.
          Now, the form and substance of God as presented by Spinoza, absent the biblical anthropomorphic projections, fits what we can observe objectively and what can be falsified. We cannot step out and say we have found God as all we can verify is the existence of substance that presents mass yet cannot have mass given STR (special theory of relativity). We can confirm that something exists which does not posses known properties of matter and energy at the current time. This invalidates philosophical naturalism which is the heart of atheism yet there is hope for them. Their hope relies on future discovery that a natural reason or new particle will be discovered. Thus the atheist and believe have a hope in something that cannot be seen without faith.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          ^^^

          Abridged version of fred's post...

          His god fits in any gap that can't be falsified...

          July 30, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • Doris

          fred, I noticed here you conclude:

          "This invalidates philosophical naturalism which is the heart of atheism"

          from

          "Now, the form and substance of God as presented by Spinoza, absent the biblical anthropomorphic projections, fits what we can observe objectively and what can be falsified. We cannot step out and say we have found God as all we can verify is the existence of substance that presents mass yet cannot have mass given STR (special theory of relativity)."

          You sound as though that possibility doesn't meet a need rather than considering if it's possible that's all there is. Plus, I don't think you can make an absolute claim that Spinoza's concept is necessarily only "what we can observe objectively and what can be falsified".

          Also, what is your example of "We can confirm that something exists which does not posses known properties of matter and energy at the current time. "?

          July 30, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          "I don't think you can make an absolute claim that Spinoza's concept is necessarily only "what we can observe objectively and what can be falsified".
          =>Actually that is Spinoza's argument. Substance and concept must exist as there is no such thing as non existence as to substance or concept. In short the proof of this boils down to the fact you cannot describe non existence other than in terms of the absence of specific forms and substances that exist. The same applies to concept. As such God (as God cannot not exist as the concept of God exists with and or without transmission of concept into the fabric of existence). This is the God bostontola expressed which is the natural. Given it is everything existing it is objective and falsifiable.

          "Please give examples of "We can confirm that something exists which does not posses known properties of matter and energy at the current time. "?"
          =>Antiparticles as quantized fields is the best example. Mass inferred for Dark energy gets a lot of press these days but, since it exists only because properties of matter are forced in order to balance an inequality it is a poor example.

          July 30, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • bostontola

          fred,
          "We can confirm that something exists which does not posses known properties of matter and energy at the current time. This invalidates philosophical naturalism which is the heart of atheism yet there is hope for them."

          This is a false conclusion, a logical fallacy. Lack of complete knowledge in any field does not invalidate that field. An error discovered in a field doesn't even invalidate that field. Only a confirmed error that cannot be corrected invalidates a field. This has happened many times in unscientific fields like the old medical fields of disease such as Humors, or Miasma. This has not happened in hundreds of years of exploration where the true scientific method was applied. The existence of phenomena that we don't yet understand in no way invalidates naturalism.

          The GTR did not invalidate Newton's Laws, it illuminated why they worked and showed their range of applicability.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
      • igaftr

        newman
        A better question would be, why do you think there are any gods, considering the fact that there is no evidence of any such thing?

        July 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • new-man

          there is absolute evidence of God. His name is Jesus!

          July 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          newman
          There is some evidence Jesus the man existed. There is no evidence anywhere that he was anything more than a man.
          Your story book is not evidence of the supernatural claims that it makes.

          why do you think there are any gods, with no evidence of them at all?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "there is absolute evidence of God. His name is Jesus!"

          Where can I meet this Jesus fellow and how is he evidence of the existence of a god?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • new-man

          your failure to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God doesn't diminish who He is.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • ausphor

          Jesus= Nowhere Man, isn't he a lot like you and me?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "your failure to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God doesn't diminish who He is."

          Trust me, it's not a failure. I am simply pointing out that the story that you believe about a person named Jesus is not actual evidence of the existence of a god. If you have evidence, please let us know what it is.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          newman
          Your baseless insistance that this Jesus character is some sort of god, does not make it so.
          There is no evidence that Jesus was a god.

          Why do you think there are gods, when there is no evidence of them?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • jhg45

          so newman? is he God or the Son of God?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          jhg45

          "is he God or the Son of God?"

          Both. The typical mistake is to think that "Son" means offspring. In the context of the Bible, "Son" is the role in the trinity. The Son is submissive to the Father as the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son. But they are three persons, one God.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • James XCIX

          Topher –
          "The Son is submissive to the Father as the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son."

          Not every Christian would agree with that characterization.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • jhg45

          no trinity in the Bible, pagan belief from Egypt, Babylon, etc. not according to the Law or taught by Jesus.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          James XCIX

          "Not every Christian would agree with that characterization."

          Who would not?

          July 30, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Christians try so hard to convince the world they are not polytheists ...

          July 30, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • James XCIX

          Topher –

          Most of the Christians I know would say the three elements of the trinity are equals, no part being submissive to the others.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • igaftr

          topher
          "Both. The typical mistake is to think that "Son" means offspring. In the context of the Bible, "Son" is the role in the trinity. The Son is submissive to the Father as the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son. But they are three persons, one God."

          And this somehow makes sense to you? That is hilarious.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • jhg45

          why does Jesus tell his followers "the Father is greater than I am" John 14:28 and in prayer to his Father (John ch 17 )read the whole chapter and tell how many beings are involved? Jesus talking to his Father making requests. great read, take 5 minutes.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          James XCIX

          "Most of the Christians I know would say the three elements of the trinity are equals, no part being submissive to the others."

          I would agree they are equal. But being submissive does not make someone any less. It's just a role within something.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          While the word "Trinity" might not appear in the Bible, it is clearly taught, not only in the NT, but also in the old.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Reality

          As noted many times, John's gospel is historically nil. If you read it for some insight to your god-man, you are wasting your time. Details previously presented.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          The doctrine of the incarnation demonstrate neatly how purely human and made up Christianity (indeed all religion) is. The idea of Jesus being a god incarnate and part of the three faceted Christian God was by no means settled in the early Christian church. Views ran the full spectrum from Jesus being just a man, to both a man and a god to a pure god, who just seemed to be a man. Adoptionism, for example, was a belief of the early Christians that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and the Son of God only at his baptism by John the Baptist. On the other hand, Docetism held that he was a god from inception and never really became human. He only appeared to be a human being, almost like a corporeal ghost.

          If you reflect on it for a moment, you can see their dilemma and the reason for the full spectrum of views. The whole idea of combining our notion of a god with a human being in the one personage meant they pretty much had to make it all up. And I mean that in the strict sense of the word. They had to develop the doctrine from scratch. They were cutting new cloth. What does it even mean for a god to “become flesh?” Just how deeply did Jesus get into his role as a human being and how much of his “godliness” did he retain? Did Jesus experience pain and a normal male puberty? Did he mastu.rbate as a teenager? Could he have fathered a child if he wished? At what point in his development as a child did he realize he was a part of the Holy Trinity? I guess modern theologians would be arguing over whether he had normal DNA and electromagnetic activity in his brain. That is the difficulty with incorporating the supernatural into any real life situation. You then have to work out exactly where the real world ends and the supernatural one starts.

          The matter was eventually settled by vote at a series of meetings of early church leaders, the most important of which was the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It was decided that Jesus would be considered both fully man and God, “begotten from, but not created by God the Father and fully man, getting his flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary.” In other words, they simultaneously answered everything and nothing.

          Think about this for a moment. The matter of Jesus’ incarnation and his exact nature were decided by popular vote. Jesus himself never said anything about it, God never showed up at any ecu.menical council to advise on the matter and, for those who consider it relevant, the Bible is totally silent on the issue. A few dozen pre-Dark Ages theologians made it up.

          This is how all Christian theology develops and evolves. It is all made up. To the extent church theologians “research” an issue, they simply look to the writings of earlier theologians who made something up. To the extent those earlier theologians researched anything, they looked to the writings of even earlier theologians who made something up. But at some point, no matter how far back we go, no matter how many theologians we pass through and no matter how honest, intelligent, pious or well lettered the original propagator of the idea was, at some point it is simply made up. Fabricated, albeit with the best of intentions and with the complete self-confidence that the fabrication is correct.

          Yes, the incarnation of Christ shows neatly how religion is all made up. Mind candy for those too weak to face the uncertainties of life and the certainty of death.

          - Colin

          July 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • SeaVik

          We've been through this before. According to Topher, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. That's what you get when you teach religion in schools.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          The reason Christians support the trinity is because the Father God of the Hebrew scriptures is so strict and most of his punishments end with him murdering those who disobey. With the new version of God 2.0 the Jesus model, it's turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth and God is the embodiment of love. This is the version Christians like most so when the trinity was first introduced nearly 400 years after Christs death the new brand of Christian took to it like a duck to water and it has been Trinity central ever since. Personally I think it's hilarious.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "According to Topher, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1."

          It's that new "Mystery Math!" that republicans want taught in public schools along with intelligent design.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is the mathematical core of republican trickle-down economics ...

          July 30, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • James XCIX

          Topher – "I would agree they are equal. But being submissive does not make someone any less."

          I disagree they could be equals if one is submissive to the other, since submissiveness implies an inferior position. I agree that the Bible provides support for the view that the Jesus son part is submissive to the father part and the Holy Spirit part is submissive to both. Not being a believer, it's not important to me, but I'm just saying that most Christians I know say the three parts are all equal, some say there's a hierarchy, and some don't have an opinion about it.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • jhg45

          Lamechtopher; how can you say the trinity is clearly taught anywhere? especially in the Bible where you say the word does not exist .Worship and give praise to the Almighty God and follow the Son of God by understanding the difference,(Mark 10:17,18)

          July 30, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          i just love how Christians teach the trinity is being un-understandable through the human mind.

          and im like oh Maiden, Mother, and Crone i get it,... using a pagan idea to understand a supposed non pagan god, with out usuing paganism, and its a no brainier as to why they don't get it

          July 30, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
      • Reality

        Who is my god, newman asked. My answer, I have no god as no god exists.

        And once again:

        Strong circ-umstantial evidence that there is no god (or did they all die as martyrs?)

        Number of god's creations who died horrible deaths from the following diseases:

        1. 300,000,000 approx.
        Smallpox

        2. 200,000,000 ?
        Measles

        3. 100,000,000 approx.
        Black Death

        4. 80,000,000–250,000,000
        Malaria

        5. 50,000,000–100,000,000
        Spanish Flu

        6. 40,000,000–100,000,000
        Plague of Justinian

        7. 40,000,000–100,000,000
        Tuberculosis

        8. 30,000,000[13]
        AIDS pandemic

        9. 12,000,000 ?
        Third Pandemic of Bubonic Plague

        10. 5,000,000
        Antonine Plague

        11. 4,000,000
        Asian Flu

        12. 250,000 or more annually Seasonal influenza

        July 30, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          ebola with a bullet!

          July 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        According to fred my god is my wife and kids...

        I personally don't elevate them to that level but his criteria was pretty broad.

        July 30, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • new-man

          fred may be correct.
          who or what is your source/ who do you look to for all your blessings – life, health, prosperity, provision, etc.
          who or what is first and foremost in your life.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • LaBella

          I find it curious that Fred spends most of his money of God, since his criteria for God is whatever one spends the most money on.
          That's how I read it, anyway.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          newman,

          That definition of "god" is so broad it is meaningless. It is a semanitic argument believers use to convince themselves their time and effort spent in worshipping a god is justified.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • believerfred

          Labella
          Not actually but God is top priority.
          Blessed is a prime example of the absolute nature of the Word of God. Existence has meaning and purpose only if there exists an external agent (God for example) as an accidental existence is without purpose or meaning. One must either have purpose and meaning according to external agency or absence of external agency. Blessed finds purpose an meaning in his family and money which are of course products of an accidental existence that is without purpose and meaning. Blessed's life is without purpose and meaning.
          This simple objective observation is stated in the Bible as the Bible is concerned with the purpose and meaning of life. If one does not believe in God they almost always come up with something that takes the place of God. This they must do as atheism and agnosticism conflicts with what is self evident

          July 30, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred gets purpose and meaning from a non-existent god. Since his god can not be shown to exist neither can his pupose and meaning.

          ...back at ya fred

          July 30, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Fred's need for a god in order to feel special is so ingrained in his psyche that he can't imagine not believing. He can't comprehend the difference between worshiping and prioritizing. For instance: My largest expense is my rent. I sure as hell don't worship my landlord, but I do need a roof over my head.

          July 30, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
        • LaBella

          Fred,
          That's nice. I think That BATC is also a perfect example of someone finding meaning to their existence despite the fact he is an atheist. And that you cannot really be the judge whether his existence is anymore/less meaningful than yours.

          July 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Exactly Tallulah,

          And I can objectively demonstrate that the things I attribute my purpose and meaning to exist in reality. Which makes my purpose and meaning real...as opposed to fred's fantasy.

          July 30, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers
          "fred gets purpose and meaning from a non-existent god"
          =>Wait, I thought we agreed there was no such thing as non existence as to concept or form

          July 30, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers
          "And I can objectively demonstrate that the things I attribute my purpose and meaning to exist in reality.
          =>Your purpose and meaning is tethered to the physical which as I warned you is very dangerous as when the organic functions cease your cumulative essence (soul) is tethered to death. You or I do not know what that possibly can mean.
          =>failure to tether ones thoughts, feelings and concepts to that which is eternal presents an unnecessary risk.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • believerfred

          LaBella
          I find meaning and purpose in many things yet all logically and rationally must be a subset of existence. BATC wife, family and money are all subsets of BATC's existence which is a subset of mankind which according to his own world view is the result of an accident 15 billion years ago or less thus BATC is a subset of an accidental existence that cannot have meaning and purpose absent agency. It cannot be viewed any other way and to argue otherwise is nonsense . I do not make judgement on others I am expressing a fact.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • believerfred

          tallulah131
          I would be the last to know if I have a need to be special anymore than you do. I will disagree with you however in that I have many times considered what if there is no God. When I do the alternatives do not make sense and I return to that personal experience I was blessed with. In that regard yes, I cannot imagine any other purpose for existence as a whole other than one by agency. In my case it is God.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • LaBella

          Well, Fred, I am glad you feel yourself qualified to judge another's existence as nonsense.
          I don't happen to think I am.
          You are truly special.

          July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          =>Wait, I thought we agreed there was no such thing as non existence as to concept or form

          No we did not agree to that, that would be ridiculous. I agreed your god exists as a concept in you head.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • G to the T

          "who or what is your source/ who do you look to for all your blessings – life, health, prosperity, provision, etc."

          Me. I've worked for everything I have. Certainly I've had the help of loving friends and family, but in the end – there's just me.

          July 31, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
  13. tallulah131

    Now this is a fabulous story:

    http://news.msn.com/us/satanists-troll-hobby-lobby-1

    I wonder if they'll post something similar on this site. Those wacky satanists. You gotta love 'em.

    July 30, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • Doris

      lol – that is wonderful. The extremist Christians, via SCOTUS, have created their own devil in a sense for that situation. Of course they became comfortable with their devil in their back pocket ever since the early church fathers needed it like a carpenter needs a hammer.

      July 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • LaBella

      Gitmo Detainees Cite Hobby Lobby in New Court Filing.

      http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/guantanamo-bay-hobby-lobby-decision-court-filing-read

      July 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Fundies never think these things through, do they?

      July 30, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
  14. neverbeenhappieratheist

    Where was the outrage over Moral Oral? lol

    July 30, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Orel...

      July 30, 2014 at 11:54 am |
      • ausphor

        Moral Oral=Bill Clinton depending what is "is".

        July 30, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          He did not have s e x with that woman, he was simply trying to feed a hungry intern...

          July 30, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
  15. zhilla1980wasp

    that's not the guy i saw on "robot chicken" getting beaten into the ground by the ogre. lmao

    July 30, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • LaBella

      I love Robot Chicken. It's been too long since I've watched that show.

      July 30, 2014 at 11:44 am |
      • zhilla1980wasp

        birds of a feather my dear......birds of a feather. lol

        July 30, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
  16. zhilla1980wasp

    basically a mute point.

    the only people i could see having a problem with a "jesus" of another ethnic background would be the christian groups like the "skinheads, kkk, etc etc. " that believe jesus was white.

    boy wouldn't they be in for a surprise. lol

    July 30, 2014 at 11:31 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      basically a *moot* point.

      July 30, 2014 at 11:35 am |
      • SeaVik

        I love it when people say "mute point". It's especially funny because they're often trying to put down someone else's point without realizing that they're making themselves look like an idiot.

        July 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I look at like 'misheard lyrics'....we all do it.

          But yeah, I absolutely see your point.

          July 30, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Perhaps it was just a typo...but I have heard people actually SAY, "mute point" so clearly they actually think that's what it's supposed to be.

          July 30, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Not a typo...just a common mistake.

          I used to say 'irregardless'....not a word.

          July 30, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • SeaVik

          My point is that it isn't a mistake like a slip of the tongue, it's a mistake as in they don't know to use the word moot, not mute.

          "Irregardless" is actually a word, it's just not recommended as it is redundant and has exactly the same meaning as "regardless".

          July 30, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I agree SeaVik...I am just saying humans are prone to that type of misunderstanding, ect.

          It is actually one of the reasons it is absurd to think the Bible, or any book, is the word of a god. Humans make far too many mistakes to trust us to such an important message. It is a joke.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • otoh2

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers,

          I always hesitate to say anything because your posts are generally great, but since we're on the subject... I've noticed that you always say "ect." for "etc." (ET Cetera). I hope that you don't say eckcetera or excetera in real life!

          July 30, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          otoh,

          You just proved my point! Thank you.

          I don't mind being shown I am wrong when it can be demonstrated.

          Now I will no longer be wrong in my use of "etc". It's a "win win".

          I guess I have a bit of dyslexia.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • otoh2

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers,
          "You just proved my point! Thank you."

          Yes, my intention was to back you up, along with giving you a small fyi.

          I'm wichoo...

          July 30, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • believerfred

          Believers know that when the godless begin to speak it is a mute point. We just don't hit the button fast enough.

          July 30, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • LaBella

          Yes, I have noticed many believers want to render dissenting opinions mute.

          July 30, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          So you are saying you intentionally disregard and deafen yourself to anyone who doesn't buy into your dogma and mythology like any good cultist would do.

          ...I would agree wih you....see common ground fred!

          July 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I've known people who say "mute" instead of "moot". It makes me die inside, a little, each time.

          July 30, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
  17. bostontola

    Satire is not an attack. Whining that comedy channels make fun of Jesus and not Mohamed is a distraction. In the US commentary, including satire, is foundational. If you don't like it, tune to another of the thousand channels.

    July 30, 2014 at 11:15 am |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    likely how it happened in the first place ...

    July 30, 2014 at 11:09 am |
  19. noahsdadtopher

    Just a few comments ...

    "As a Christian myself, I like the idea of seeing Jesus return in various guises, skin colors, outfits and social contexts. Why not?"

    Well, his skin color could be varied (and thus can be played in a movie by a number of different actors) but He MUST be Jewish. Not just because He was Jewish, but because the Messiah had to come from the "chosen people." After all, the point them being "chosen" was because He was to come through their lineage.

    "The Jesus I know and love was something of a party animal. His first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding: and lots of wine was apparently drunk."

    Calling him a party animal isn't exactly holding Him up in reverence and I think you could have used a better phrase. But yes, he was at a party. No sin there. But are you saying He was drunk? Perhaps I missed your meaning. But you do realize that the Bible says NOT to get drunk. And if Jesus sinned, His death would have been useless. He had to be free of sin (a "spotless lamb") in order to take on our sins and then impute His righteousness onto us. If we were given His righteousness and He had sinned, then we'd be right back to where we started — deserving to go to Hell.

    "Jesus met with who.res and bartenders (publicans) and all sorts of marginal folks."

    A publican was a tax collector, not a bartender. You might be confused because a "pub" comes from the British term "public house." That being said, I'm sure if there were bartenders in that time and place, yes, Jesus would have met with them, too.

    "And I look forward to many other versions of Jesus, in many settings. He would always speak in the lingo of the neighborhood, even if to some ears this might sound "foul-mouthed.""

    Again, you've got the problem of saying that foul language is a sin ...

    "I'm sure the message of Jesus can survive "Black Jesus.""

    Now THIS we can agree on.

    Sir, I hope you don't take this as an attack on your story as I'm sure many atheists will try to claim. My only suggestion would be that to take this show as not showing any reverence to Christ, not holding Him on high and thus it should not be something a Christian should want to be involved with. And as I've pointed out, if He is made out to be a sinner in any way, it is blasphemy and should be shown to be so by all Christians.

    July 30, 2014 at 11:03 am |
    • igaftr

      Topher
      Perhaps you should watch it BEFORE judging...that way you won't sound so foolish.

      July 30, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Don't need to. The information has been provided. And if it portrays Christ in a blasphemous way, I'm not going to watch it.

        July 30, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • joey3467

          There is no way for you to know that the information is true unless you watch it.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • igaftr

          So you are going to judge it without seeing it, and if it is "blasphemous' you won't watch it...How can you know if it is "blasphemous" if you don't watch it in the first place?

          You basically just said, I am going to judge this based on my ignorance.

          I'll tell you what topher, watch it with a cattle prod. Every time you laugh, jam the cattle prod into your belly.
          That way you can atone for their percieved "blasphemy", and cure your ignorance as well.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • tallulah131

          It sounds funny to me. It also sounds kind of like the Jesus portrayed in the bible: Hanging out with the poor and wretched. No wonder some christians reject it. Their Jesus would never hang out with the scum of society. Their Jesus is far too busy listening to the prayers of nice, clean christians and preparing their reward for them.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Do you have a problem with humor?
          Blasphemy is a victimless crime, so sad that you don't see it that way.

          July 30, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • Doris

          You know how some shows do a spoof episode of their own show – sometimes around Halloween or another holiday. They should plan a spoof episode called Southern Baptist Jesus. It could be a dream by one of the characters. The ghost of Jerry Falwell could have a cameo spot.

          July 30, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "If it portrays Christ in a blasphemous way, I'm not going to watch it."

          So sad that an adult would avoid watching a TV show because it makes jokes about religion. It's an incredibly laughable subject. Perhaps if you didn't bury your head in the sand, you'd see that and learn to live a life free of religion.

          July 30, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • ausphor

          I am not a violent person. In my 50 plus years I think I have only been in one so called fight, more of a pushing shouting match and no one was hurt. Yet recently I think that if I were to meet Topher I would take great deal of satisfaction in punching him in the face, perhaps more than once and would tell him to grow up already. Does Topher have the same affect on anyone else?

          July 30, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          ausphor: No but I would like to kidnap him and force him to watch COSMOS until he finally clued in. I know that borders on brainwashing but it amazes me that anyone believes the way he does in the 21st century...it's simply bat shit crazy.

          July 30, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Don't need to. The information has been provided. And if it portrays Christ in a blasphemous way, I'm not going to watch it."

          You do realize that's been the premise for quite a few book burnings right?

          July 31, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          ausphor
          "I am not a violent person. In my 50 plus years I think I have only been in one so called fight, more of a pushing shouting match and no one was hurt. Yet recently I think that if I were to meet Topher I would take great deal of satisfaction in punching him in the face,"

          – you are very obviously an intolerant person and have not matured much in your "50 plus years"

          August 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |
  20. colin31714

    Black Yahweh had a child, bam-a-dam?

    July 30, 2014 at 10:59 am |
    • igaftr

      Damn thing gone wild bam ba lam

      July 30, 2014 at 11:03 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        ooooowwww black Yahweh
        bam ba lam, ooooowwww black Yahweh

        July 30, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
1 2 3 4 5
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.