9 thoughts on “Jesus and Mo and Templeton

  1. I get the joke on Templeton, but I worry some over any statement that soon everything will be explained. Unlikely in the extreme.

    Like the poor, explanatory gaps will always be with us. Unfortunately for those wanting god to dwell in the holes, well, he’s not so obliging.

    A question is just a question, and there’s little room now for meaningful magic in the observable universe. People attempt to keep a deistic god a “possibility” in the far distant past as an apologetic for their purported close-up and effective god. Even if Deism were a reasonable conclusion–which it isn’t–how would that give meaning to their own personal Jesus?

    Glen Davidson
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  2. Excellent!

    Glen, yeah, you’re right, but I still laugh at the “gaps”. 🙂 Better than the Big A** gaping holes in the innumerable versions of the holy texts!

    Relax. Have a laugh.

    Pdiff

  3. Not re. the toon but there’s an automatically-generated link below it to a Charles Templeton.

    NB that that he & John Templeton are two different people.

  4. I just hope having an image of You-Know-Who doesn’t get you in big trouble with a certain religion that claims to spread peace and love to all – or else!

    1. I believe it was “revealed” in a previous Jesus and Mo strip that the “Mo” we see is actually his stunt double.

  5. If you’re going to shorten “Mohammad” to “Mo”, it’d probably be more even handed to shorten “Jesus” to “Jessie”. Although I guess that hasn’t really shortened the name any.

  6. “I worry some over any statement that soon everything will be explained. Unlikely in the extreme.”

    Well note who said it. He’s not what you’d call a reliable witness. (And anyway he said nearly everything.)

Leave a Reply