Subscribe via RSS Feed

Why Satire is Funny: Debunking “Pope Francis Condemns Racism and Declares that ‘All Religions Are True’ at Historic Third Vatican Council”

December 29, AD 2013 32 Comments


So there’s an article out there on the interwebs that seems to be causing some confusion amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the original source here:

Let me lay out some basic facts about the Diversity Chronicle’s amusing piece:

First, the Third Vatican Council has neither been called nor concluded, as jokingly alluded to in the article. I promise, you would have noticed if it had—there would have been announcements from the pulpit, articles in your diocesan paper, articles in major-city newspapers, live media coverage, and your bishop would have gone off to Italy for a few months (or years).

Second, this article was published by the “Diversity Chronicle” which, as you can tell from the name, has a very specific bias. Not that having a bias is a bad thing. As I am always writing on my students’ papers: does the author’s bias help or hurt his argument? In this case, the author has picked up on several real events from Francis’ papacy to bolster the basic argument that the Catholic Church, under Francis’ guidance, is coming more in line with the Diversity Chronicle’s agenda, that is, a championship of “human rights” including the right to abortion and tolerance—understood as acceptance—of the world’s religions, ethnicities, social classes, and sexual orientations. Now that the bias has been identified, it’s up to us, the readers, to decide if the author’s argument holds.

Third, the Diversity Chronicle admits to being a satirical site. See their disclaimer here:

Now for some basic facts about satire:

Satire is funny because it takes a grain of truth and does something to showcase what is terrible or perverse or confusing or outrageous about it, whether by making it bigger or smaller or more black-and-white or more grey.

Satires are pretend. Although based in some truth, they are intentionally outlandish to make a point. They say, “see, if you extend the logic of x idea, or practice, or system of thought, you’ll end up with this.” But in real life, x idea does not extend that far.

Think about Jonathan Swift’s famous A Modest Proposal in which he, pretending to be an English gentleman, suggests the Irish might alleviate their poverty by simply selling their babies to upper class families for consumption. He even suggests butter sauces and side dishes appropriate for accompanying the tender flesh of a newborn human being. Swift does not, however, intend such a thing to actually happen. Rather, he is poking fun at the—horrifying—“modest proposals” made by economists of his day which made distinctions between the “able” and “impotent” poor, often allowing or even encouraging the demise of the latter. What a satire says, in other words, is often the opposite of what it means.

Reading a satire requires knowing (1) the grain of truth being referenced, (2) the agenda of the author, and deciding (3) if the author’s interpretation of (1) is accurate.

How my article responding to Diversity Chronicle (DivC)’s will proceed:

After looking through some message boards and other blogs, I’ve chosen a selection of what seems to be DivC’s toughest passages. For each I (1) identify the grain of truth (2) point out how DivC’s presentation of (1) helps their case, and (3) offer some guidance as to whether DivC’s interpretation is or is not accurate.

(A) CLAIM: All religions are true.

DivC: “In a speech that shocked many, the Pope claimed “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them.”

(1) Grain of truth: Pope Francis indeed maintains that “An attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue with the followers of non-Christian religions” (Evangelii Gaudium, #250). This, he argues, is required especially of dialogue between Christians and Muslims, allowing followers of both faiths to “acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their [the other’s] demands and shed light on shared beliefs” (Evangelii Gaudium, #253). Further, quoting the International Theological Commission’s Christianity and the World Religions, “Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live ‘justified by the grace of God,’ and thus be ‘associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ,’” and, “they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony” (Evangelii Gaudium, #254).

(2) DivC’s bias & interpretation: DivC, which promotes the equality of all religions for the purposes of human equality, interprets Pope Francis’ acknowledgement of the possibility of non-Christians entering heaven (i.e., being justified) means that the Pope thinks the any religion can “get” a person into heaven, because truth is in the heart of the believer. Remember, this is satire, so DivC is partially saying, “the pope would never do this” but also saying, “wouldn’t it be great if he did?”

(3) Accurate or Not?: Not. First of all, living according to your “conscience” means obedience to Natural Law, that movement written into every human being to behave morally. This has nothing to do with finding truth in your “heart.” For instance, I might believe in my heart that I always deserve the last slice of cake or cookie in the jar, but Natural Law and my conscience tell me I ought to share with my husband. The “heart” is typically understood as the metaphorical seat of the appetites, what do I want? While the “conscience” is understood as functioning from the intellective will, choosing what is right.

Secondly, in Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis reminds us Catholics that, “A facile syncretism would ultimately be a totalitarian gesture on the part of those who would ignore greater values of which they are not the masters. True openness [to interreligious dialogue] involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity, while at the same time being ‘open to understanding those of the other party’ and ‘knowing that dialogue can enrich each side.’ What is not helpful is a diplomatic openness which says ‘yes’ to everything in order to avoid problems, for this would be a way of deceiving others and denying them the good which we have been given to share generously with others. Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another” (Evangelii Gaudium, #251). In other words, all religions are not true, and it is intellectually and spiritually dishonest to divorce interreligious dialogue from evangelization. Part of dialoguing with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters is witnessing to and promoting the Catholic faith.

RESPONSE: People of any religion can be justified, but the idea that all religions are “true” ignores the value of religion itself.

(B) CLAIM: Hell is not “literal.”

DivC: “Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God.”

(1) Grain of truth: As far as I am aware, Pope Francis has yet to speak directly about Hell. What he has talked about is the possible justification of non-Christian believers in the Divine and atheists (see, for instance, the quotations in A.1). The assertion does, however, sound like the sort of thing he would say, doesn’t it?

(2) DivC’s bias & interpretation: Hell, or a final punishment, is not compatible with the idea that truth and morality are relative, or that following your heart is what it takes to be a good person. After all, nobody tries to be evil, people just fail at being good (or, from DivC’s perspective, choose a different kind of good). Why, DivC asks, would a loving God force people to suffer for choosing the wrong kind of good? Again, this is satire, so DivC has picked up on Pope Francis’ emphasis on God’s love and expanded it to mean that God will not allow suffering.

(3) Accurate or Not?: If the Catholic Church really abandoned the concept of a “literal Hell,” it would be embracing an understanding of the human person which disallows the possibility of rejecting God. In other words, rejecting Hell because of the infinite love of God would involve rejecting the doctrine of free will. . .now that does not sound like a loving God, does it? People go to Hell because they freely will to reject God. God does not want any of us to go to Hell, He wants us to be with Him in Heaven, but He will not take away our free will to reject him.

Now, there is a small but vocal minority of theologians who believe that while Hell is very real/literal and available for human beings to choose, it is empty. These theologians maintain that upon death every human person meets God face to face and is given the opportunity to accept or reject him. Who, they ask, would look into the face of Love and say “no”? Hell, therefore, is real but empty.

Perhaps Pope Francis is privately one of these theologians, but it is not the sort of thing he would declare as Pope. The existence of a literal Hell is not up for debate (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1035f). Hell’s population and citizenship, however, have never been determined by the Church, and indeed cannot be: there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to tell us definitely that Hell is empty or that it is well populated with Hitlers and Judases and Caligulas. What the Church does teach, and what Pope Francis undoubtedly affirms, is that going to Hell—or Heaven—is a choice, freely made by the human beings whom God loves well enough to honor their decisions.

RESPONSE: There is a literal Hell; Jesus speaks of it, the Tradition perpetuates it, and no pope, not even Pope Francis can, or would, overturn it.

(C) CLAIM: The Bible is outdated.

DivC: “One statement in the Pope’s speech has sent traditionalists into a fit of confusion and hysteria. . . ‘The Bible is a beautiful holy book, but like all great and ancient works, some passages are outdated. Some even call for intolerance or judgement. The time has come to see these verses as later interpolations, contrary to the message of love and truth, which otherwise radiates through scripture.’”

(1) Grain of truth: There are passages in the Bible which seem scandalously contrary to the message of love and truth, for instance, the idea of total war/holy war in Deuteronomy 9:5. The Catholic Church has traditionally understood that passages such as these are not to be taken as literally true, but as revealing a deep and significant spiritual truth. In the case sighted here, that sin cannot be uprooted merely be saying “I shall sin no more,” but must be totally obliterated from the landscape of a person’s soul. Catholics believe in a form of Scriptural truth called limited inerrancy, maintaining that everything in the Bible is true, but that some things require a particular interpretation. You are probably familiar with the 7-day creation story in Genesis, but did you realize it is immediately proceeded and followed by an instantaneous creation story and a 1-day creation story? All three of these stories are true because they all say something about what and why God created, but we need not try to bully these diverse stories into a single narrative. Pope Francis affirmed this practice of reconciling Scripture with Tradition and logic in his address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission on April 12.

(2) DivC’s bias & interpretation: It is impossible to read Scripture without noticing the themee of sin, repentance, and dependence on Christ for salvation. By stripping these things away DivC is able to promote a “modern” church with a “modern” reference for “morality”—ourselves.

(3) Accurate or Not? Sort of? The Bible is not “outdated” but many of its passages ought not be taken literally. To do so is un-Catholic. Scripture is beautiful but it is not ultimate. Catholicism is not a religion of the boom it is a religion of the Word, that is, in Jesus the Christ, who reveals himself to us through Scripture and Tradition. We strive to learn more about and to understand Christ through both Scripture and Tradition which must be read through and in each other. Pope Francis explains this very well and briefly in his April 12 address. If you have a little more time on your hands, feel free to skim through Dei Verbum for a fuller explanation of how Catholics interpret Scripture. (P.S.: Pope Benedict particularly talks about the “dark parts” of Scripture [like those that seem to promote total war] in his post-synodal exhortation Verbum Domini, #42.)

RESPONSE: The Word of God is never outdated, but the Bible is just one expression of Him.

I hope this, admittedly very long, article is helpful to those who might have been confused by the DivC article or been wondering how to respond to social media messages either decrying or applauding the “pope’s” words/actions. Remember, DivC’s article is completely fictitious. Knowing the truth behind the satire is the first step to responding charitably and intelligently to those who miss the joke.

About the Author:

After growing up near Kennett Square, PA, the Mushroom Capitol of the World, Siobhan knew she would always live in a bustling capitol city. She earned a B.A. in Theology, History, and Classics at Mount St. Mary's University and an M.A. in Theology (specializing in Systematics) at Villanova University. Now she lives in Washington, D.C. with her wonderful husband where she is still getting used to living with a boy, right down to playing video games and watching football. When she's not hanging out with him or reading novels, she uses her spare time to earn a PhD in Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America.
  • Thanks Siobhan for clarifying. I myself got a bit shaken by the article, although something inside me tells me that it’s a spoof. The things is, there’s nothing in the article itself that suggests it’s a spoof. Any unsuspecting reader would think elephants these days could already fly.

    So I consulted Catholic friends about it. One of them pasted your article and so I’m here. Again, thanks!

  • james

    I think the claim should have read ALL RELIGIONS HAVE TRUTH. If there were
    not other major religions out there we’d become inbred and never have enough
    balance to understand our own. Hell may be literal but the Catholic concept is
    woefully lacking while Eastern deism has a fully developed concept.that better fits many passages of the gospel. The bible is not outdated merely unsophisticated in its translation..

    • msbabes

      The Words of God can not be changed, from the beginning up to the end, it will always be the same.

      • james

        Only if you are woefully lacking in immagination, reason and
        common sense.

      • Randall Ward

        God does not change. His revelation to man is subject to the weaknesses of man.

  • Chris Ricketts

    That article was hilarious! Are people that wound up that they can’t handle a little satire??? Wow…

  • Randall Ward

    The root meaning of satire is; ripping flesh.

    • Randall Ward

      Have you read the history of the inquisition? Popular myths and one thing and the truth is another. The inquisition was a very minor historical event. The murder of 300 million people by the communist governments of the earth is a big event.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Shocked by Same-Sex Adoption | iwannabeasaint()

  • nannon31

    Benedict’s section 42 of Verbum Domini on the “dark passages” ought not be held up for admiration as you do near the very end of your piece. Whatever his other merits, this section was a projection of Benedict’s late life pacifism and misrepresented the prophets on violence. It is as though Benedict never read the Old Testament completely.
    Here are Pope Benedict’s words in section 42 of Verbum Domini: “In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel.”
    The statement simply is not true. There are prophetic verses against inter Jewish, often class violence (Jer.22:3, Eze.45:9, and Micah 6:12 ” you rich men are full of violence”) but the prophets were not against all violence.
    Elijah killed 552 men minimum (I Kgs.18:40 e.g.); Eliseus was mandated by God to kill those who escaped the sword of Jehu ( I Kgs.19:17); the prophet Samuel killed Agag since Saul did not do so as ordered by God; and Jeremiah says to the Chaldeans (Jer.48:10) that they must kill the Moabites with precision: ” Cursed are they who do the LORD’s work carelessly,
    cursed those who keep their sword from shedding blood.”
    Not one prophet opposed all violence because God used violence as a motivator ( in wars and in death penalties for mortal sin) prior to Christ bringing sanctifying grace (Jn.1:17) and prior to His reducing the devil’s power (Lk.10:18).
    It is these last two creative acts of Christ that change things radically in those two areas though the death penalty for murder (not adultery etc.) perdures by implication in Romans 13:4 which echoes Gen.9:6 …both being given to Gentiles ( thus the catechism could not condemn executions per se in ccc #2267 but tried to void them by saying life sentences are protecting people which is simplistic because arrest rates vary dramatically across the globe and life sentences protect you only from caught murderers (3% of murderers in Guatemala)).
    Prior to Christ, the Jews were weak without sanctifying grace and the devil was stronger prior to Luke 10:18 wherein Christ says, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning.”
    Thus man lacking sanctifying grace and having a powerful devil at hand…man needed demonstrations of God’s power and justice… in order to be good on a basic physical level so that Jews were to be stoned for adultery but not for coveting which was less damaging socially and less provable.
    Benedict in his desire to see Europe become religious again ( like John Paul II) was trying
    to have the Bible seem more likable by modern secular man but flattering the OT prophets while not noticing the truth about their orientation to violence is not a solution.
    Ditto for his absurd insinuation that God did not order the herem or massacres. God did order the herem but only after appealing to the Canaanites in other ways for over 400 years…the import of the first long section of Wisdom chapter 12 coupled with Gen.15:15-16.
    How do Popes make such mistakes with no countervailing constructive criticism from within Catholicism? I leave that to readers though I think the culture of papal flattery that permeates the past decades is one piece of the puzzle and Catholic book sales and careers is another and ignorance of Biblical detail is a third.

    • nannon31

      This passages of yours on the massacres is false: ” There are passages in the Bible which seem scandalously contrary to the message of love and truth, for instance, the idea of total war/holy war in Deuteronomy 9:5. The Catholic Church has traditionally understood that passages such as these are not to be taken as literally true, but as revealing a deep and significant spiritual truth.”

      Here is Aquinas saying the opposite:

      Summa Theologica
      First Part of the Second Part
      Question 105
      article 3
      reply to objection 4

      Reply to Objection 4. A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God’s people; whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Deuteronomy 9:5) “because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in.” The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.

  • Jonathan

    What do you mean by the response that people of any religion can be justified? Even if they know about the truth of the Gospel, and Jesus? Even if they are idol worshippers? Read what Jesus said in John 14:6.

    • Kit Walker

      And what, pray, is wrong with an idol bud? Does it go an kill other people in the name of religion? No, fanatics do. Do they go to crusades and jihads? Again Nada. Are the idols intolerant of people who can’t see the divinity in them.. I haven’t yet seen one do that yet. Instead here’s I know of Idols, be it the image of Jesus on the cross, the status of buddha or the picture of Krishna, they evoke a feeling of being close to divinity, they provide a tangible image to focus on and to love. They bring you closer to God.

      • Jonathan

        >> “And what, pray, is wrong with an idol bud? Does it go an kill other people in the name of religion? No, fanatics do. Do they go to crusades and jihads? Again Nada. Are the idols intolerant of people who can’t see the divinity in them.. I haven’t yet seen one do that yet.” <> “they evoke a feeling of being close to divinity, they provide a tangible image to focus on and to love. They bring you closer to God.” <<

        Just because some can feel close to divinity by it, doesn't prove that it's a true feeling, rather they are deceived. Just because a hypochondriac feels that he's sick, does it mean this is true?

        Feelings don't always constitute truth, but can be deceiving.

        They provide a tangible image to focus on and to love? Well, if you were married with a man (if you're a woman) or woman (if you're a man), would you tolerate that he/she constantly focused on and loved another man/woman than you?

        The Bible teaches that there's only one God, and the first commandment forbids having other gods before Him.

        Now, those gods (Krishna etc) aren't divine, but are idols and works of man. They don't bring anyone closer to God, but leads people to an eternity in hell because of their idolatry.

        "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them." (Psalms 115:4-8 ESV).

      • Kit Walker

        Excuse me here, but the Krishna that you are calling false god, isn’t He the heavenly Father that our Lord called out to, prayed to and told us to believe? Divine, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent, Guide, Teacher, Father all rolled to one? Why is it that if you change the name to God or Jehovah, He becomes true God but if you call the same Him Krishna he becomes just an idol. And before you decry idols – consider this – If God is our Father and we as his children make his image the way we perceive him in our hearts ’cause we adore him, much as a child might draw the picture of a loving parent – why would our Father be angry? It is a representation of Him. This whole concept of throwing around dogmas and psalms is somehow beyond me and I crave pardon for not agreeing with you that in this entire fathomless universe God is so unkind that he put all his wisdom only in Bible and nowhere else. Bible without a doubt is word of God, but definitely not the only one.

      • Jonathan

        No it’s not the God of the Bible, but a false god. Why do you think God separated the Israelites in the Old Testament from the surrounding pagan people? If they worshipped the one true God, wouldn’t he unite them with them? No, they worshipped false pagan gods, which are evil and to whom they sacrificed babies to etc.

        To say that a god that demands babies as sacrifice is the one true God, IS BLASPHEMOUS!

        >> “If God is our Father and we as his children make his image the way we perceive him in our hearts ’cause we adore him, much as a child might draw the picture of a loving parent – why would our Father be angry? It is a representation of Him.” <> “God is so unkind that he put all his wisdom only in Bible and nowhere else. Bible without a doubt is word of God, but definitely not the only one.” <<

        God is not unkind. How can you be prideful enough to judge God like that?

        He has put wisdom in many Christians too

        The Bible is the only fully God-breathed book, yes.

        The books of false religions give a false picture of God, contrary to the holy Bible.

      • hat

        ‘The books of false religions give a false picture of God, contrary to the holy Bible.’ Oh boy…

      • Randall Ward

        You are wasting your time, these people know the truth and reject it.

  • Jonah

    Guys please post this article in your social networks coz the hoax is spreading in Facebook already…please let us spread this awareness to prevent confusion for the “not so strong in faith” Catholics in the world. Thanks and may God bless us all. 🙂

  • Siobhan Benitez

    For those of you who are concerned about my quality of Biblical interpretation, I encourage you to read Vatican II’s Dei Verbum ( more carefully. You can also check out the 1993 document promulgated by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger) which discusses the use of both Patristic-style exegesis (like St. Augustine, whom St. Thomas follows closely) and contemporary-style exegesis. The PDC’s doc “Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” is available in French on the Vatican website ( or English from EWTN (

    St. Augustine is quite right that the OT patriarchs are “wonderful”–but let’s not forget that this section of City of God is where he establishes what will become the Catholic stance on war for the next 1,600 years: Just War Theory.

    • nannon31

      It’s not about your interpretation for me. It’s about Pope Benedict saying the prophets were against all violence. No school of exegesis, no CDF, no PBC, no Vat.II document no reading list as argument… can save Benedict from being factually mistaken in that assertion. You can give reading lists til the cows come home and Benedict’s statement remains factually incorrect.
      On the massacres, that is a separate issue entirely. He wants to disconnect them from God mandating them via contemporary genre oriented and historical context exegetical techniques like Blessed John Paul similarly attempted in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae in regard to the death penalties in Jewish law in Deuteronomy and in Leviticus. But as Monseignor Pope noted from Seattle in 2010, when you void a first Person imperative mandate from God, you open a door to gays voiding the anti sodomy commands; open a door to the remarried as they try to void the divorce prohibition etc. etc. etc. How do you tell gays and the remarried that they are voiding commands of God in the first Person imperative if two Popes unlike all Popes prior to them void the massacre mandate e.g. which was also mandated by God at the literal level. And here’s the real nail in the coffin for Benedict on the massacres. How are his genre/ context people going to void the worst massacre of all…70 AD….Jerusalem…Between 600,000 and 1.1 million killed and which was pre-announced by Christ who said it would happen because Jerusalem had not known the hour of its Visitation and said that their children would die within them. Benedict might convince a certain IQ bandwidth that Joshua was fiction genre but he stands no
      chance of convincing even them that Christ and His comments on the worst herem (70AD) was also fiction. So Benedict doesn’t even mention 70 AD even though it was the worst herem and Christ announced it. Keep in mind that God told the Jews that He punished down to the third and fourth generation of those fathers who hated him. That does not mean that those generations ( children and babies) went to hell either at Jericho or at Jerusalem ( the preborns mentioned by Christ). David’s baby by Bathsheba was killed by God for David’s sin but I’ll bet is in heaven with the preborns of Jerusalem and of Ai and of Jericho and there I agree with John Paul II who in EV noted that he felt that aborted babies were with God.

    • Randall Ward

      In the OT God delt with people as he found them and the people were violent then as they are now. But by knowing God the people gradually became more peaceful in the OT history. Instead of killing a whole village for some wrong done, God told them to only kill the guilty person. This was probably all the people would accept at the time. The progression to even getting angry being counted as murder took a long time, but God is not in a hurry, because He knows the sinfulness of people.

  • Charlie Johnson

    Excellent, Siobhan. I don’t know if we should grace the original article with the term satire, though. Surely there is a minimum level of humor and wit that satire requires, whereas the article was just false and confusing.

  • Pingback: Why Satire is Funny Debunking “Pope Francis Condemns Racism | Vatican Report()

  • Pingback: Unchanging | Soft Clay()

  • Kit Walker

    I, for one, really do hope that the Pope said and meant All religions are true. He is a learned man. The hubris that sometimes leads some people to pronouncing absurdities like other religions as defective can come only from a lack understanding of Jesus, his words and his relationship with God. Jesus was a true master who had established the relation with the Self that dwells within and his ministry was about opening up of the Kingdom of God which is within everyone to the masses, freeing them of the tyranny of pretenders who positioned themselves between the man and God. No doubt then he was betrayed and put to cross. Comes along a set of people who build a complete set of fable around what Jesus stood for and pass it off as religion. Guess what? It catches on too. Big time. The whole falsehood around calling other religions being false is just a ploy to get converts by hoodwinking them. Let’s not forget Jesus himself was a student of other religions and learnt from them.

    • Randall Ward

      Jesus was not a student of anything. He is God. No where in the bible does it say Jesus was a student or a student of other religions. Making stuff up our of whole cloth gets you nowhere.

  • gurukalehuru

    Satire is funny. That is part of the definition. Bullshit is not funny. I have a seriously low appreciation for people who spread bullshit and then say “That was satire.” If people did not recognize it as satire, then it was lame satire and you should get out of the satire business, forthwith. If you serve me an open faced grilled cheese sandwich with ketchup and say “That’s a pizza,” it doesn’t automatically become a pizza.

  • Efeose

    The things of the spirit has and will forever remain a myster to the canal minded. Trying to rationalise it only results in more confusion. The truth remains that the things of the spirit are more real than the physical. Even if the world calls it a lie or old fashioned, God’s truth remains the only truth. God is sovereign, not relative.

    • hat

      ‘The truth remains that the things of the spirit are more real than the physical.’ I am more bridge minded than ‘canal minded’. What is your e-mail address? I am looking to sell the Brooklyn Bridge for an easy 5k.

  • msbabes

    only people’s interpretation change, not the words of God!!! Worst is when people go to the extent of changing them!!!

  • iakovos