Fox Blasphemes Jesus Christ in Airing Family Guy’s ‘2,000 Year Old Virgin’ Episode

Family GuyConcerns are being raised over an episode of “Family Guy” that aired on Fox this past weekend, the parent company of Fox News Network and Fox Entertainment Group, which blasphemes Jesus Christ by mocking his purity and depicting the Messiah as desiring to lose his virginity with another man’s wife.

“The 2,000 Year Old Virgin” was broadcast on Fox on Saturday, and was meant to be the Christmas version of “Family Guy,” an animated sitcom that often features off-color humor known to push the envelope. The show is produced by Fuzzy Door Productions, run by atheist Seth McFarlane, and 20th Century Fox Television, run by Jewish President David Madden. Fox was acquired in 1985 by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also publishes both the NIV Bible and The Satanic Bible through his ownership of Zondervan and Harper Collins.

In the controversial episode, “Family Guy” character Peter Griffin learns that Jesus is a virgin, and in a similar plot as the film “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” sets out to help the Messiah lose His virginity.

“After running into Jesus at the Quahog Mall, Peter is stunned to discover that the Son of God is still a virgin,” a description of the episode outlines. “So, he enlists Quagmire and Cleveland to help him throw Jesus the best birthday ever by finding a way to help him become a man.”

When Jesus, who is played by Alec Sulkin and depicted as a man with long hair who goes out with the guys for a beer, selects Peter’s wife Lois, Peter agrees under the condition that he receive a massage chair.

The episode then depicts Jesus as lying about his virginity—that he only tells men that he is a virgin so that he can have sexual relations with their wives in exchange for gifts. As Jesus and Lois rent a hotel room together, Lois pulls out of the situation, stating that she doesn’t want anyone other than her husband. At the end of the broadcast after Peter and Lois thank Jesus for teaching them a lesson about resisting temptation, Jesus declares, “Who cares? I’m not even real. Merry Christmas.”

During a commentary on the broadcast in Season 4, creator McFarlane spoke on his hatred for Christianity.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Do I have that much contempt for Christianity? I guess maybe I do,” he said. “The Big Bang has got a lot of support, live with it.”

“I do not believe in God. I’m an atheist,” he stated in a separate interview. “I consider myself a critical thinker, and it fascinates me that in the 21st century most people still believe in, as George Carlin puts it, ‘the invisible man living in the sky.'”

But McFarlane’s latest episode has disgusted even those who identify as fans of the often controversial sitcom, as they state that “Family Guy” has gone too far.

“This is thirty minutes of a ticked off anti-Christian making sure the world understands that he hates Jesus,” one commenter on IMDB wrote. “It was all about Seth MacFarlane forcing his views down our collective throats.”

“This is the first time I’ve stopped watching a Family Guy episode less than a quarter way through,” another wrote. “It’s absolutely sickening what they did.”

Some called for Fox to pull the broadcast before it aired, but it was given airtime anyway. The full episode also remains posted on the Fox website.

Editor’s Note: Those wishing to express objection to Fox airing the blasphemous “2,000 Year Old Virgin” episode of “Family Guy” may call Fox Entertainment Group at 310-369-3801 to leave a message for Deanna Harris, the assistant of President David Madden, or email [email protected] Please be kind and respectful in expressing your objection.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Neiman

    Hollywood – with a few very rare exceptions, are thoroughly anti-Christ. They would never dare to attack Mohammad or Allah and they know it. Three movies about the Bible, one with Russel Crowe, one about Moses and another coming out about Moses all change the Bible to show God to be angry, violent, a psychopathic terrorists like Islam and in the newest about Moses they even say the parting of the Red Sea was a natural phenomenon and that Moses knew it would happen and it was no miracle.

    Hollywood has long been at war with Christ and the Christian faith – they hate Jesus, because most of them are so morally corrupt, total degenerates.

    • James Grimes

      “Hollywood has long been at war with Christ and the Christian faith – they hate Jesus, because most of them are so morally corrupt, total degenerates.” You are 100% correct here.

    • Tony Jiang

      dont worry during the middle of the episode Peter gives the audience the number to the parent’s television council so you can tell “those jews in hollywood” to stop mocking your religon:)

    • Kenner Single

      Kindly get your facts staight before ommenting.
      they have mocked mohammad.

    • Kenner Single

      3’Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and INFANT, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'” Nope, nothing psychopathic about killing infants because of something their parents did.

      • Neiman

        I am not anointed to defend God. As you are an unbeliever, no explanation would ever satisfy you. So, I would be wasting my time.

        Assuming God exists, for your sake, not mine I know He exists; but, assuming He does exist for a moment, does not he Who created all things have the right to do with them whatever He pleases? Can the pot say to the potter, I do not like the way you made me. Or, can we say He does not have the right to make some vessels for honor and some to cast into the fire?

        Again, for the sake of discussion, assume He exists. What motive would the Creator of all things have to be unjust? He who made and has all things, what would be His motive? So, if He exists, being God, we must know that He would only and always do justice. He spared not His own son from torture and death, was that cruel? Well, because of His death, eternal life was made possible for the whole world, so it was an act of supreme Love to offer up His son, it was Justice served and Divine Love made manifest.

        The whole article is worth your reading, but here is a passage that addresses your question. Again it will not satisfy you, but I wanted to answer you.

        Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4).

        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html#ixzz3LeX1UEtL

        • mike

          “As you are an unbeliever, no explanation would ever satisfy you. ”

          that’s not true, we are not being EXTRA critical of your god. All we need is some actual evidence. If Vishnu came down tomorrow all the atheists would believe in him, how do u think the christians would act?

  • Rhonda

    I wonder if they show reruns…in Hell?

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Thank you, Rhonda – well put! God bless you, Sister!

      • TheSootyOne

        Which god? Zeus? Odin? Ra? All of these were around long before the jealous, spiteful and petty Yahweh. You don’t want to piss Zeus off, ’cause we can observe his thunderbolts (mind you, Yahweh’s pretty good at taking time off giving AIDS to African babies to stick his face on toast and other bread products)

    • Nerd Gasm

      if only such a place existed…

    • TheSootyOne

      Which hell? Which god? There’s so many to choose from, and each one has exactly the same evidence of existence of the others.

      • Rhonda

        you haven’t studied Christianity then.

  • Peter Leh

    Sounds like a typical family guy episode. The show has been around since 1999. If you are offended in 2014 you have not been paying attention.

  • Perfectfish

    The Family Guy blasphemous?? How about the western world always depicting him as a tall, lanky, white guy.

    • Mike

      I don’t know if that would be blasphemous, because it’s not really mocking, but I do think we need to start portraying Jesus for what he was, a Middle Eastern Jewish man. One with olive or darker skin, and brownish hair and brownish eyes. He wasn’t white, or black, he was Middle Eastern. Look at the Jewish people in Israel, good chance Jesus looked like them, after all, he was Jewish, and he was born in Israel. I don’t know why we portray him as white, it’s fact that he wasn’t white.

  • railhead

    “The show is produced by Fuzzy Door Productions, run by atheist Seth McFarlane, and 20th Century Fox Television, run by Jewish President David Madden.”
    “Fox was acquired in 1985 by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also publishes both the NIV Bible and The Satanic Bible through his ownership of Zondervan and Harper Collins.”

    Wow, I’m shocked that a mainstream Christian news source has the guts to tell it like it is like this. Great job, Heather Clark of Christian News Network! You will be labeled “anti-semitic” for just pointing out David Madden is Jewish and disagreeing with him, though.

    I can agree with the post below, but they also would never dare say anything to attack the religion of Judaism in Hollywood, since they own it all. “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:” ( 1 Thes. 2:15)
    And they also point out the depiction of Jesus as having long hair to be errant. Wow! Ms. Clark, you got some guts!

  • Don Hodgdon

    Yawn…much ado about nothing. If you really had faith, this wouldn’t faze you in the least.

  • Michael Anderson

    It was my favorite episode! If you don’t like it, that’s what the channel changer is for.

  • Rusty Shackelford

    Surprised the holier-than-thou gang were watching it in the first p[lace. Just more Christer hypocrites looking for something to whine about.

  • Dump Dizzle

    Oh look, vaginas getting offended again.

  • TheSootyOne

    ““It was all about Seth MacFarlane forcing his views down our collective throats.” BWAHAHAHAH as opposed to a church on every corner and 100 channels of evangelic pablum on TV every day!

    • Demopublicrat

      Or evolution taught as fact!

      • jayz0ned

        Or gravity! The nerve of those scientists and teachers!

        • Demopublicrat

          Gravity is observable, have you personally witnessed a cow becoming a whale or do you just take it on faith? Religious faith.

          • Tony Jiang

            i see you learned from the Ray Comfort school of science btw a whale tyurning into a cow would actually DISPROVE evolution

          • Demopublicrat

            You pick the two and the order, but the result will just be more religious belief as speciation has never been observed.

          • TheSootyOne

            Did anyone here personally witness the death of a guy nailed to a tree and then coming back to life three days later? How about all the animals on the earth stuffed into a boat and the world flooded? No? Didn’t think so.

          • Demopublicrat

            What does that have to do with your claim of evolution being science and not religion?

          • TheSootyOne

            Sorry, ignorance in this day and age of information is a willful act. I’ll not bother answering that because anyone who thinks that science is the same as religion isn’t clear on the concept of either.

          • Demopublicrat

            The old “I’ve got nothing” cop out, we’ll see you them mr. helper.

          • Bri

            Speciation has been observed, look up ring species for an easily understood example.

          • Demopublicrat

            “…but for which there exist at least two “end” populations in the series…”
            Another dead end – pun intended. We “end” up with a sterile offspring, nope nothing here.

          • Bri

            The offspring can not interbreed with the original generation but can with each other. Seriously look up ring species.

          • Demopublicrat

            This is what I found:
            “A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good “ring species,” a few readers asked me what I meant by that. “What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species?” My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense, but there was still one species that might be a candidate: the greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Tibetan Plateau.
            But now that one, too, has been struck off the list of ring species, leaving no good cases.” – http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com

          • Tony Jiang

            the only one religous here is you, evolution is as religous as gravity, only a true fundie would think ken ham’s claims of historical vs emperical science is accurate

          • Demopublicrat

            The blind pope-lover fails to do anything other than offer BS.
            The fundamentals of evolutionism have to be taken on faith as there is no proof at all, Ken Ham’s “claims” are far more accurate than the pope’s could ever be. If you have some scientific proof of evolution, then do share, I would love to see some – save the assumptions and speculation, just facts please.

          • Tony Jiang

            i am not a catholic nor even a christian, Ken Ham is a total joke and you know it, only someone stupid would claim that “historical science” exists, the Ken-Ham lover fails to do anything other than offer BS that has been refuted 10000 times.

          • Demopublicrat

            So you’re a religious zealot of a different belief system. You claim I’ve been given all of these “facts” yet I see absolutely no proof at all of evolution -I don’t need Ken Ham or anyone else to show me what I can plainly see (or don’t see).

          • Tony Jiang

            no i am not, evolution is science unlike creationism were its all just goddunit

          • Demopublicrat

            *YAWN* You know what they say, if you tell a lie long enough…
            Good luck with your religion, don’t forget to evolve before bed.

          • Tony Jiang

            yeah you are talking about chrisanity, your the only one who has a religon here evolution is about religous as gravity, and saying “don’t forget to evolve before bed” demonstrates your ignorance

          • Demopublicrat

            Bla, bla, bla, gravity, bla, bla, whatever religion boy.

          • Tony Jiang

            Bla, bla, bla, gravity, bla, bla, whatever fundie christian, only stupids call evolution a religon, get over it

          • Demopublicrat

            Bill Nye’s latest video starts out with “somehow, probably” when preaching his religion. If you actually think evolution is science you are quite deluded. It should be “Bill Nye, religious guy”. “somehow, probably” – definitive science, ROFL.

          • Tony Jiang

            no i am no you are the only deluded one were, if you think Ken Ham is intelligent you are quite deluded ROFL

          • Demopublicrat

            Attacking Ken Ham doesn’t prove your religion.

          • Tony Jiang

            i am not religous like you only a brainwashed fundie thinks it is

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever you say, religion boy.

          • Tony Jiang

            no again you are the only religous one, i am not the one that says evolution is a religon, it couldnt be one even if i wanted it to be!

          • Demopublicrat

            Doesn’t matter what you say, evolution is a religion – even if you don’t want it to be.

          • Tony Jiang

            nothing is religous about evolution get it through your skull

          • Demopublicrat

            Doesn’t matter what you say, evolution is a religion – even if you don’t want it to be.

          • partyrobotmachine

            yes it is you have to believe it by faith

          • Tony Jiang

            plenty of facts have alread been given to u

          • Demopublicrat

            If by facts you mean assumptions and speculation? Then yes.
            Hey look the mailman’s here – that proves evolution because he had to come from somewhere.

          • Bruce Wayne

            Evolution is observable too, where to you think MRSA and other drug resistant bugs came from?

          • Demopublicrat

            Bacteria is still bacteria and if left alone reverts back to its original state like Darwin’s finches reverted back. It has to be taken on faith that adaptations lead to speciation. When you can observe bacteria becoming anything other than bacteria get back to me.

          • Tony Jiang

            then why do you take dogs turning into cats as “proof” of evolution? its just mammals turning into mammals. But you refuse to take bacteria into bacteria as proof

          • Demopublicrat

            Dogs never turned into cats, bacteria remaining bacteria is supposed to be some kind of proof?

          • Tony Jiang

            yes because you think mammals turning into mammals is prove that evolultion is true

          • Demopublicrat

            Meds wear off, when did I say that?

          • Tony Jiang

            its what you been implying all day long

          • Demopublicrat

            Ahhh… no. I didn’t say anything evolved into anything else, sorry.

          • Tony Jiang

            so then you admit you are a fidleist just like your fellow fundies?

          • Demopublicrat

            You pagans making up words again?

          • Tony Jiang

            more of your stupidity

          • Demopublicrat

            I’m not fabricating words to prove my un-provable religion.

          • Tony Jiang

            its clear that you are too brainwashed by ken ham to think coherently about evolution

          • Demopublicrat

            Ken Ham has nothing to do with the facts, and if you had anything besides your blind faith in evolutionism, you would post it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’m pretty sure that’s why it’s call a “theory”, because there is no absolute proof. Maybe we should start using the term “Theory of Christianity”.

          • Demopublicrat

            Oh is Christianity taught with tax dollars at government schools as fact? I don’t think so, try again.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Oh is Christianity taught with tax dollars at government schools as fact?”

            No. Neither is evolution. Hence the phrase “THEORY of evolution”.

          • Demopublicrat

            Sure thing, it may be only a religious “theory” but it is alluded to as fact and the point is that it is in the schools.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The theory of evolution is not a religious theory.

            “the point is that it is in the schools.”

            And?

          • Demopublicrat

            and it is a religious theory, those who practice it must have faith that it could ever have happened despite indications to the contrary.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The definition of religion from Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

            The Theory of Evolution does not meet the requirements for being a religion.

          • Demopublicrat

            “The definition of religion from Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…”

            “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Merriam-Webster
            Evolutionism DOES meet that criteria.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Pulling out a section of the definition without the whole definition is not proof. it is deception.

          • Demopublicrat

            One FULL definition out of a handful. Evolution is a religion, every time I say that all I get in return is “no it’s not” no proof, just denial which indicates your blind faith in it.

          • Tony Jiang

            thats because you are making a loaded statement, which is an automatic fail

          • Demopublicrat

            Just because you can’t emotionally handle it, doesn’t make it wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Neither of the definitions you provided are full definitions.

            “every time I say that all I get in return is “no it’s not” no proof”

            I provided you with the definition of “religion”. The Theory of Evolution does not meet the criteria. So, yes, I did provide proof.

            On the other hand, when you say that the Theory of Evolution is a religion, you provide no proof. Rather, you basically say: It is because I say it is. Which indicates the weakness of your argument.

          • Demopublicrat

            It fit in the definition I posted from Merriam-Webster, if you don’t like it call them.
            Your crying over their definition indicates the weakness of your argument.
            Evolution is a religion as the majority of it has to be taken of faith because it cannot be observed – feel free to believe what you want, but don’t insult science by insisting evolutionism is science.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It fit in the definition I posted from Merriam-Webster, if you don’t like it call them.”

            The 4th definition and not one that is related to the practice of religion.

            “Evolution is a religion as the majority of it has to be taken of faith because it cannot be observed”

            So then you believe that anything belief in anything that cannot be completely observed, is a “religion” and teaching such a teach – even as a theory – counts as teaching a “religion”. Therefore, since we have not actually observed the earth rotating around the sun, teaching that amounts to teaching religion, correct?

          • Demopublicrat

            “The 4th definition and not one that is related to the practice of religion.”

            They must have tossed a definition for a different word in there just to make it interesting.

            “So then you believe that anything belief in anything that cannot be completely observed, is a “religion” and teaching such a teach[sic] – even as a theory – counts as teaching a “religion”.”

            No matter how much you attempt to muddy the waters, the fact remains that evolution is a religion.
            1) The whole premise of evolution has to be taken of faith.
            2) Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…”
            3)”Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” – Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423. True Science doesn’t exclude based on beliefs, religion does.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They must have tossed a definition for a different word in there just to make it interesting.”

            No, they included the 4th definition because the word “religion” is used in a variety of ways. Hence the examples they provided. For instance: “Football is a religion at that school”.

            “1) The whole premise of evolution has to be taken of faith.”

            No, it doesn’t. There is substantial evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.

            “2) Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…””

            Here’s the rest of that definition that you left out: “… especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moral code governing theconduct of human affairs.”

            Using a partial definition is dishonest.

            “3)”Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” – Todd, Scott C”

            As with the definition you provided, you again provide an incomplete quote. The remainder of Dr. Todd’s quote is; “Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.”

            While Dr. Todd is certainly entitled to his opinion, his opinion says nothing about the Theory of Evolution being a religion.

            You are certainly welcome to continue grasping at straws to attempt to paint the Theory of Evolution as a “religion”, but it clearly is not.

          • Demopublicrat

            “No, they included the 4th definition because the word ‘religion’ is used in a variety of ways. Hence the examples they provided. For instance: ‘Football is a religion at that school'”. You are certainly welcome to continue grasping at straws to attempt to paint evolutionism as anything other than a religion.

            “There is substantial evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.” Poppycock, it has to be taken on faith – have you personally witnessed bacteria evolving into a higher life form or do you have faith that it did?
            “superhuman agency or agencies” like “billions of years” nobody observed?

            “as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that…” as an individual, but that won’t affect the evolution religion as propagated by the establishment.
            Evolutionism is a religion with no proof, I am quite sure if you had some you would have posted it – enjoy your religion, but don’t try and call it science.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You are certainly welcome to continue grasping at straws to attempt to paint evolutionism as anything other than a religion.”

            I have no need to grasp at straws. It’s not a religion.

            “Poppycock, it has to be taken on faith”

            Again, there is substantial evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. That are you unaware of it does not mean it does not exist.

            “have you personally witnessed bacteria evolving into a higher life form or do you have faith that it did?”

            No I haven’t. Nor have I personally witnessed the earth revolving around the sun. Have you? Or are you a member of the Revolving Religion?

            “but that won’t affect the evolution religion as propagated by the establishment.”

            Evolution is not propagated as a religion.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Again, there is substantial evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.” There is NO proof.

            “No I haven’t. Nor have I personally witnessed the earth revolving around the sun.” That is testable and observable, sorry apples to oranges.

            “Evolution is not propagated as a religion.” I never said it was propagated as religion – I said it was religion, and you say I have comprehension trouble, read this more slowly: “but that won’t affect the evolution religion as propagated by the establishment.”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There is NO proof.”

            Agreed. That’s why it’s called a “theory”.

            “That is testable and observable, sorry apples to oranges.”

            You asked if I had seen it. That was your question. If you meant something else, then you should have asked something else.

            “I never said it was propagated as religion”

            Then perhaps you can explain your statement: “…the evolution religion as propagated by the establishment.” Pretty much says that the establishment is propagating evolution as a religion. You described evolution as a religion, and then you said that the “establishment” (whatever that is) is propagating it.

          • Demopublicrat

            “That’s why it’s called a ‘theory’.” Hardly enough “evidence” to even qualify as that.

            “Then perhaps you can explain your statement: “…the evolution religion as propagated by the establishment.” Pretty much says that the establishment is propagating evolution as a religion. You described evolution as a religion, and then you said that the “establishment” (whatever that is) is propagating it.” You’re getting warmer, keep trying.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Hardly enough “evidence” to even qualify as that.”

            Your opinion is in the minority.

            “You’re getting warmer, keep trying.”

            So you can’t explain your statement. Got it. It’s certainly not necessary for me to keep trying. Your statement was clear, and was as I noted.

          • Demopublicrat

            Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one – but that’s not science.

            “So you can’t explain your statement.” I shouldn’t have to, are you that dense? I said the religion is being propagated by the establishment, not that evolutionism is being propagated as a religion by the same. Get it now, or perhaps you could flag down a kindergartener.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I said the religion is being propagated’

            What religion is that?

            If something is a religion, and it is being propagated, then it is being propagated as a religion. What else could it be propagated as?

            I know, dear, English can be hard.

          • Demopublicrat

            “What religion is that?”
            Evolutionism, try and keep on track.

            “What else could it be propagated as?” Science perhaps? I know, dear, English can be hard.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh, I get it now. YOU are the one propagating the theory of evolution as a religion. Not the schools. They are propagating it as a theory.

          • Demopublicrat

            Still no reading comprehension, (no wonder you believe that crap) – they are propagating the religion of evolutionism as a theory (yet it’s stated as fact everywhere you look).

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since the theory of evolution is not a religion, nor is believing in evolution a religion, you are mistaken.

          • Guest

            []

          • Bri

            You, sir, have no understanding of evolution whatsoever.

          • Demopublicrat

            That’s what the religious evolutionists seem to always say when they have nothing.

          • Bolvon72

            That would have been a wolf actually, not a cow.

          • Demopublicrat

            So you saw the whole thing then? Or are you just taking that on faith as your religion?

          • mike

            you religious idiots are 200 years too late to try and bash evolution. It’s established by EVERY SINGLE scientific community in the world.

            and if you can “observe gravity” let me know what planets, black holes and stars you have been to to observe it.

          • Demopublicrat

            “you religious idiots are 200 years too late to try and bash evolution. It’s established by EVERY SINGLE scientific community in the world.” You religious idiots need to come up with something better than appeal to authority arguments if you going to get more converts.

            I’ll tell you what, I’ll stand on the roof of a ten story building, hold a brick directly over your head, then you can tell me if I have observed gravity. But first to make it fair (it probably won’t work if we do the brick thing first), you can go up on the roof and jump and I’ll let you know if I see you evolve up some wings.

          • Tony Jiang

            nice job proving my point again, evolution by definition cannot count as a religon, and also accoding to your logic all you demostrated was that micro-gravity can be observed but not macro-gravity!

          • Demopublicrat

            What point? Trying to make your religion true by comparison is a fail, why don’t you try that “wing thing”, let me know how it works for ya.

          • Tony Jiang

            get it through your thick skull evolution by definition is not a religon,i was merely demonstrating that according to your logic gravity cannot be observed

          • Demopublicrat

            You were merely trying to lump your religion in with some science hoping that it would look more “scientific” and less like the religion it is.

            “according to your logic gravity cannot be observed” BS, Let’s try that brick test.

          • Tony Jiang

            thanks for admiting that you are wrong (again) there is nothing unscientfic or religous about how one spieces can change into another fundie

          • Demopublicrat

            “there is nothing unscientfic or religous about how one spieces can change into another”
            Then by all means I would like to see some, or do I have to take that on faith.

          • Bolvon72

            It’s hard to take a guy who says what you just did seriously when he believes a guy got crucified then zombied up and jet packed into the sky a few days later without the need for instant replay.

            Just check out Wadi Al Hitan and try to avoid sounding so silly.

          • Demopublicrat

            Is that supposed to be some kind of proof of your religion? An exploding dot that accidentally. somehow turned into life without the need for any proof – but call it science anyway.
            Fossils, they make nice paperweights, yet as far as proof of anything other than that creature existed, not so much. But that is why you have faith, faith that THIS magically turned into THAT.

          • jayz0ned

            As a chemist, I believe in the scientific process. The entire scientific community accepts some form of evolution. Evolution has observable consequences and is a useful branch of biology. I agree that teaching evolution as fact is wrong: no branch of science deals in absolutes, and everything should be taken with a pinch of salt…. Except mathematics. Teachers should make it clear that evolution is simply the best explanation humanity has to account for the biodiversity of life, the fossil record, why viruses adapt to antiviral drugs, etc.

          • Demopublicrat

            “The entire scientific community accepts some form of evolution.” Popular opinion, the scientific community once accepted the Earth was flat.
            “Evolution has observable consequences and is a useful branch of biology.” There are minor observable consequences that are shoved into the evolution box while ignoring other possibilities, the rest (a huge gaping hole) is taken on faith.
            “Teachers should make it clear that evolution is simply the best explanation humanity has to account for the biodiversity of life, the fossil record, why viruses adapt to antiviral drugs, etc.” is simply the best explanation – religious belief.

          • jayz0ned

            Lmao, you lost all credibility when you said the scientific community accepted the flat Earth hypothesis… Maybe 3000 years ago that myth was commonly believed, but that was before modern science as we know it existed.

            I’m not denying that science requires some “religious belief” such as the belief that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers, that this objective reality is governed by natural laws and that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation… If you are discrediting evolution due to “religious belief” then you would have to throw away all of science, as every field requires the belief in an objective reality that you obviously don’t belief in. If something is taught in science classes, the students are free to agree with or disagree with the basic philosophy of science.

          • Demopublicrat

            “these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation… ” Not evolutionism, there is no observation or repeating of the religious belief.

            “then you would have to throw away all of science,” Stop generalizing, science can be repeated and observed. Science does not exclude possibilities and shove everything into someone’s religious belief.

          • jayz0ned

            “Science does not exclude possibilities and shove everything into someone’s religious belief.”

            Except… Science does exclude possibilities. The core philosophy of science is “there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers, that this objective reality is governed by natural laws “. A supernatural entity shouldn’t be included in any scientific class or hypothesis. So when explaining the biodiversity of life, a naturalistic approach needs to be taken, and evolution is the best description of that which we currently have. What naturalistic explanation do you have which is better than evolution which could replace it in the curriculum?

          • Demopublicrat

            How about something observable, repeatable, and testable, or how about not teaching evolutionism as fact or science, but as the religion it is.

          • jayz0ned

            Nah, that is stupid. They should just introduce a “philosophy of science” class so that misunderstandings such as yours would be less common.

          • Demopublicrat

            I have no misunderstandings.

          • jayz0ned

            Okay. What other branches of science do you think are religions? Cosmology? Geology? Almost every field of science has theories which extend from the observational (eg: microevolution) to the historical (macroevolution). For instance, in cosmology we can observe the background radiation of the universe and the movements of galaxies. In geology we can observe rock formations and the physics of the earth. Is attempting to explain those phenomena non-scientific in your belief system? Because nearly every theory that we have in science is based off extending observations from the present to the past and future, so that we can make applications based off these physical principles. Science shouldn’t be taught as fact… It should be taught as science. Science isn’t only observational, and other methods of science are equally valid if they have real world applications… which evolution, geology, and cosmology have.

    • partyrobotmachine

      you can chose to not to go to church and if you don’t like one you can pick another

  • Demopublicrat

    “Fox was acquired in 1985 by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also publishes both the NIV Bible and The Satanic Bible through his ownership of Zondervan and Harper Collins.” That must be that “fair and balanced” thing everyone goes on about.

    • Kaizer Allen

      Fox News has a different management.

      • Demopublicrat

        Sure, ‘ol Rupert is strictly hands-off, or whatever…

  • Lefty Blitzer

    It is just a cartoon without any basis in reality, just like your (and every other) religion.

  • Amy Marie

    LOL! His hatred of Jesus?? He doesn’t believe in Jesus. Funny how when it comes to Jesus disbelief=hate but when xians disbelieve in every other deity throughout history that’s what…common sense? Such thin skins for people who believe such ridiculous things. If you are going to believe in the absurd you better toughen up a bit. If your deity is so powerful & didn’t like it he would just magic this episode away wouldn’t he? No need to take offense on behalf of an all powerful deity is there? Don’t confuse thinking your beliefs are stupid with hatred. It is closer to pity.

    • Mike

      ..What? If we didn’t like it, Jesus/God would just magic the episode away? You obviously don’t understand how Jesus/God works. That messes with free will. Jesus doesn’t concern himself with things like this, there are much more important things. The thing is, Seth complains about people shoving beliefs down his throat, when this is exactly what he does. Big Bang doesn’t have any support. How can nothing, turn into everything? It can’t, it violates one of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. Big Bang creates energy. God creating the universe doesn’t, God IS the energy, therefore, he transferred it to the Universe. The point is, Seth mocks Christianity, but yet, he has no clue what it’s about. There are so many mocking errors in his shows. He has a hatred for something that he doesn’t believe in, that’s a typical atheist feeling, hate for something they dont believe in. Tell me where the logic is in that.

      • Amy Marie

        I hope you are a troll because that is just 1 big argument from stupid!
        1) free will – according to your argument then there must be no miracles because if there were god would be interfering in free will.
        2) What does the big bang have to do with this discussion? You are just trying to muddy the waters as theists often do because they can’t win on the merits of the issue.
        3) You do not understand the law of thermodynamics. Stop reading apologist literature & pick up a science book. By the way, who created your god? Why haven’t you won a nobel prize for your groundbreaking work in physics??? Proving god & the universes beginning should get you one.
        4) Mocking xianity doesn’t display hate. You are simply making statements as true & factual & then not able to demonstrate they are factual. Your statements of truth are opinion, and not educated opinion even.
        All of this comes down to you pretending to know things you don’t know. I don’t believe there is a god. There may be. Show me the evidence & I’ll believe. Until then I withhold belief. I don’t hate your imaginary god or anyone else’s. I do hold the right to make fun of stupid beliefs no matter how sincerely they are held. You can easily stop me. Prove your god is real. It is very, very simple. Either you can prove your god or you can’t & EVERYTHING you wrote other then proof is utter BS. Just like every other god belief on the planet. I don’t care what you believe, be as foolish as you like. Shut me & every other atheist up with 1 good piece of evidence your god exists. Give me your best evidence right now,

    • partyrobotmachine

      but why would God care about a cartoon

  • Scott Clinch

    Demopublicrat jayz0ned evolution and gravity are theories and don’t propose to be otherwise. On the other hand…………….

  • Kayla

    Family guy isn’t a religion channel and nor is it a antichrist show either. It shows a normal life style where people have their own opinion. Louis- stay at home mother. Peter- a working father who does crazy things with his friends. Meg- over weight highschool girl who gets picked on about her weight so she considers killing herself almost every episode. Chris- a socially akward boy who gets small paying part time jobs helping people out or doing his paper rout. Stewie- a baby who has an erge to kill his own mother and is intelligent beyond anyone in the house and that is why most of the time they do not understand him it’s not because he’s a “baby” but because his a genius sarrounded by morions. And Bryan- he is voiced by Seth Macfarlane who is also athist and like the character, Bryan also tries to be a writer and tries to get his book published but fails many times, but he makes a book that makes the headlines “wish it ,want it, do it. But states he made it in a day ( meaning that he spent his life trying to make a book that would make it to the headlines to only no give on F* about a book and it makes it all the way) Seth Macfarlane is also voices of Peter and Stevie. Their are episodes of where they all go to church . (Christen church) Louis is Jewish, and Bryan is an athist. So stop over thinking family guy yes it has some twisted humor and some of its a little disturbing but hey I still crack a grin when I see it. It may not be roll on the floor laughing but it’s still funny. And trying to stop something for doing what it has done since 1999 is a shame on you. If you were really that much offended by it then why did it take you 15 years to be offended.? You know why because you didn’t care until now when someone els had a problome with it.! That why. So quit overthinking it. If you want to talk about a show that is aint Christian look at “mr pickles” and if you can still sit here and tell me that family guy is anti Christian then maybe you are just to childish to watch a show and enjoy the work people put into these showes.

  • Michael Wicks

    “This is thirty minutes of a ticked off anti-Christian making sure the world understands that he hates Jesus,”
    –I doubt he hates Jesus any more than he hates leprechauns. It’s hard to hate something one doesn’t believe exists.

    “It was all about Seth MacFarlane forcing his views down our collective throats.”
    –Seth isn’t knocking on people’s doors on Saturday mornings threatening them with eternal torture of they don’t believe the same way he does, nor is he trying to pass legislation forcing people to live their lives according to the teachings of any religious mythologies.

  • Mark

    I have been known to watch Family Guy but I doubt that I shall watch this episode.

  • Kenner Single

    No attack on Hollywood is complete without mentioning someone is Jewish

  • Kenner Single

    Oh! I missed that one! Thanks for telling me I can download it from Fox’es web site!

  • Darkwaters

    Funny stuff. Don’t worry, your delusions will continue.

  • Vin Rohm

    And here I thought it was just Muslims who are so easily offended. It’s satire. Learn to appreciate the humor.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    “It was all about Seth MacFarlane forcing his views down our collective throats.”

    So people were “forced” to watch this episode?

    “This is the first time I’ve stopped watching a Family Guy episode less than a quarter way through,”

    Oh, it appears they weren’t. Well that’s a relief.

  • http://www.FascistDykeMotors.com/ Katy

    “Blasphemes”?

    Seriously?

  • GalapagosPete

    So, you want some cheese with that whine, Heather?

  • http://allmendontlust.com allmendon’tlust.com

    What would you expect on the “Mouth piece of the world.” Love towards Christ and his ways. Remember those who say, Do not judge, usually judge the most. As good stewards, Of our beloved God, Jesus Christ we should never set our eyes upon the impure things that are on the television. Should we evangelize, yes. But we must ask the question, “Who has witnessed to who the most, the world or the Church?”