Toys for Tots Agrees to Take Jesus Doll

what the crap? why would you say something like that?

because serenity is likely as extreme, intolerant, and closed-minded as critics make christians out to be ....

Yeah, it would be terrible if some kid got a toy for Christmas.

Yeah. Look, if I were a kid who wanted a toy, I wouldn't care if it was a doll of Mohammed (though there wouldn't be, since Muslims don't do pictures or sculptures of Mohammed), Jesus, or Bill Gates! I'd be thankful anyway.

In explaining the initial decision, Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Va., had said the program didn't want to take the risk of offending a Jewish or Muslim family if they received a Jesus doll.

Well then, why didn't they offer it to someone else?

Well then, why didn't they offer it to someone else?

Because they dont know the religion of the recipients and therefore would not know to "offer it to someone else." Toys for Tots does not screen or ask its recipients what religion they are.

The fact that anyone in the world thinks this is a good idea makes me want to shake something really hard.

Good Call on the dumpster. How is that a toy? Second, what about the separation of church and state (Marines are a government entity)? I think it is in bad taste to throw religious beliefs on others.

I agree with the spirit of the dumpster remark. Toys for Tots is not an appropriate platform for evangelism. Christmas, like it or not, has become a holiday for everyone, not just Christians. If you want to give your own kid a Jesus doll, that's fine. But don't abuse your "charity" to underprivileged kids by tying propaganda strings to it. Honestly, I'm disappointed that TFT recanted.

I won't give your kid a Lucifer doll if you don't give my kid a Jesus doll, OK? And I won't try to spread my Luciferian message to the kids as a condition of my generosity.

And I'm tired of Christians, who are the majority in the US, acting like they're being persecuted by the Roman Empire if someone dares to question their motives and agenda.

Freedom of religion must include freedom FROM religion.

Jesus loves you, but LUCIFER gives you the cool stuff.

I agree with the spirit of the dumpster remark. Toys for Tots is not an appropriate platform for evangelism. Christmas, like it or not, has become a holiday for everyone, not just Christians. If you want to give your own kid a Jesus doll, that's fine. But don't abuse your "charity" to underprivileged kids by tying propaganda strings to it. Honestly, I'm disappointed that TFT recanted.

I won't give your kid a Lucifer doll if you don't give my kid a Jesus doll, OK? And I won't try to spread my Luciferian message to the kids as a condition of my generosity.

And I'm tired of Christians, who are the majority in the US, acting like they're being persecuted by the Roman Empire if someone dares to question their motives and agenda.

You stated my thoughts on this so perfectly that I don't feel the need to type my own post. Well done. It sort of reminds me of missionaries who go to poor, underdeveloped African countries and give them gospel tracts instead of food.

won't give your kid a Lucifer doll if you don't give my kid a Jesus doll

Exactly.

so all you bashers against serenity enjoy your young children being brainwashed by a talking doll that quotes scripture? you people are nuts.

And don't give me that crap about 'stealing the Pagan's holiday.' Working old traditions in with the new ones is always how things work.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism.

most aren't. unfortunately only the ones who are, are heard.

These gifts presumably represent the gifts from the wise men to baby Jesus, right? Sacrifices of respect to the son of God?

A plastic Jesus doll?

Something is lost in translation.

I am not going to give you the appropriation of pagan holidays line (as you asked so nicely), but it's worth noting that loads of plastic junk have little to do with the spirit of Jesus.

Then, in my opinion at least, the majority should rise up to decry the fundamentalist voices of intolerance. That, to me, is the only thing that'll save the long-term prospects (and spiritual prosperity) of organized religion.

Mind you, I do attend church as an agnostic atheist with my in-laws from time to time (as a nicety), who are borderline fundamentalist; I don't have a beef with those that tolerate others, but as an ex-born-again myself, I've seen more than enough of the "minority" to see that it, in fact, does exist more than I'd previously thought before I entered Christianity's walls.

Hello, X-mas? Hello, Solstice? Hello, Kwaanza? Hello, Hannukah? Hello, Boxing Day? Hello, Santa Claus? Hello, secular freakin' society?

I think the Jesus freaks should remember that for many people these gifts don't represent anything other than a chance to make somebody happy, and that somebody's momentary happiness in comparison to every other day of the goddamned year.

Don't give me that crap about "Jesus is the reason for the season." Co-opting other traditions' holidays in order to make your beliefs palatable to the majority has always been done, it's called syncretism. St Patrick's day isn't "about" green beer to the truly religious, but I don't see Bible freaks crying about it here in America.

But hey, all you trinitarian heretics are going to burn in hell, anyway. Let the kids have some fun for a couple of seconds, without trying to brainwash them.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism.

And yet another gross generalization of a group of people. Please don't make generalized, stereotypical statements like that, it really is worthless.

Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism

From a historical context, this is not a gross generalization. There is good historical evidence to suggest that Christianity was "at war" with paganism and trying desperately to win adherents. This, for example, is the source of many notorious efforts to kill witches (pagan beliefs existed as folk customs like wise women well into the middle ages, and the Church (the voice of organized Christianity a.k.a. Christians in general) was always looking for ways to stomp it out.

However, most modern Christians are not like this. Thank the Enlightenment.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism.

I certainly see plenty of intolerance in this thread and it doesn't appear to be coming from Christians.

I know Pagans and Paganism quite well [I was engaged to rather prominent High Priestess] and know the slamming goes both ways.

These gifts presumably represent the gifts from the wise men to baby Jesus, right? Sacrifices of respect to the son of God?

Nope. Totally different holiday, that would be the Epiphany or 3 Kings Day. In some Christian cultures it is more popular than Christmas and where the presents are given. However, it is a completely different holiday from Christmas.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism.

It's not exactly like pagans were so tolerant back.

Thanks, Adam for the clarification. Why are gifts given at Christmas, then?

I think it follows from the tradition of Saint Nicholas who evolved into Santa Clause. Initially there was actually a Saint Nicholas day where the gifts were given out of tradition that he was a prolific gift giver to the children and poor. However, after the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther combined the holiday with the Birth of Christ, because Saint Nicholas Day had become too associated with the Papacy, Nicholas being a canonized saint and all. Eventually Catholics adopted the holiday as well and Saint Nicholas Day became little more than just another Feast for a Saint for most Catholics. Some Protestants on the other hand still celebrate Saint Nicholas Day, though its importance varies from culture to culture.

Ah...thank you. I knew about the Saint Nicholas mythology, but had not realized that it, rather than the birth of Jesus, was the root of gift-giving at Christmas. That sort of flattens the notion that Christmas gifts are about Christ, though, doesn't it?

I've been an active Christian for some 17 years as well as grew up in the church and have never thought that the gift giving has anything to do with Christ. I know quite a few Christians who actually don't give gifts at Christmas because, in their mind, it takes away from the real reason for the celebrations of Christmas (Christ's birth).

That sort of flattens the notion that Christmas gifts are about Christ, though, doesn't it?

Meh. A ton of serious Christians that I know stopped celebrating "Christmas" altogether because it was too commercialized and now just celebrate the "Nativity." I'm not sure if they still do gifts or not.

Hello? CHRISTmas?

I think the Jesus bashers should remember what these gifts represent and what the holiday is about.

And don't give me that crap about 'stealing the Pagan's holiday.' Working old traditions in with the new ones is always how things work. Halloween didn't start out with kids dressing up as Power Rangers for a fist full of Smarties.

Hello? Happy Holidays?

I think the secularization bashers should remember what these gifts represent and what the holiday is about (love, caring, and a spirit of generosity).

And don't give me that crap about "stealing the Christians' holiday." Working old traditions in with the new ones is always how things work.

Hello, X-mas? Hello, Solstice? Hello, Kwaanza? Hello, Hannukah? Hello, Boxing Day? Hello, Santa Claus? Hello, secular freakin' society?

I think the Jesus freaks should remember that for many people these gifts don't represent anything other than a chance to make somebody happy, and that somebody's momentary happiness in comparison to every other day of the goddamned year.

Don't give me that crap about "Jesus is the reason for the season." Co-opting other traditions' holidays in order to make your beliefs palatable to the majority has always been done, it's called syncretism. St Patrick's day isn't "about" green beer to the truly religious, but I don't see Bible freaks crying about it here in America.

But hey, all you trinitarian heretics are going to burn in hell, anyway. Let the kids have some fun for a couple of seconds, without trying to brainwash them.

Heh, looks like someone else saw the opportunity for parody before I got to it.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if Christians weren't so vehemently intolerant of Paganism.

And yet another gross generalization of a group of people. Please don't make generalized, stereotypical statements like that, it really is worthless.

It's not really a generalization, it's a statement based on scripture. "Suffer not a witch to live" is not really open to interpretation, is it? I know that this is OT, and that Christians often pick and choose what OT material to live by, but there is no biblical authority for toleration of pagans.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are united in their stand on Paganism. "There is no god but God" and "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me" are pretty cut and dry. So don't get all "oh, my gracious, you're making generalizations about my religion" on us. We read the book, Josh, and maybe you should do the same. You might be surpirsed at what you're supposed to believe.

By the way, I'm not a Pagan. I find belief in multiple gods just as silly as belief in one god. But Pagans are OK in my book, because none of them have knocked on my door to hand out literature. That REALLY annoys me.

We read the book, Josh, and maybe you should do the same. You might be surpirsed at what you're supposed to believe.

You're quoting things from the OT like it's the law shows your complete misunderstanding of "the book." I'm not going to get in an argument here about the role OT law plays in modern life now, but you talk about Christians "picking and choosing" without understanding biblical context.

You misinterpreted my statement and took it as me saying that as a Christian I'm okay with paganism. Of course I'm not. There are plenty of things I don't believe in. But just because I'm against something doesn't mean I go shove down people's throats the issues I don't agree with them on. While the Bible does teach that certain things are sin, it overwhelmingly teaches more about love. And I'm certainly more inclined to love a person before beating them with a Bible...THAT I don't agree with.

So, before you make ignorant statements about how "maybe I should read the Bible," how about you talk to me about what I really believe and learn what I really believe instead of pulling my statement out of context or making implications from them.

You're quoting things from the OT like it's the law shows your complete misunderstanding of "the book." I'm not going to get in an argument here about the role OT law plays in modern life now, but you talk about Christians "picking and choosing" without understanding biblical context.

Didn't Jesus say that not one jot or tittle of Mosaic law would be blotted out?

You misinterpreted my statement and took it as me saying that as a Christian I'm okay with paganism.

No I didn't. I never suggested that you are OK with Paganism. Just the opposite, in fact. I had a suspicion that you'd be against it, since you're a Christian.

what I really believe and learn what I really believe

What you really believe and what Christianity teaches are apparently two different things.

And Love, Shmove. Jesus said "I bring not peace, but a sword." He also said "resist not evil." He also said "If thine eye offendeth thee, pluck it out."

So I repeat ... Christians frequently pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will enforce. I'm not talking about YOU, here. I'm talkin' about the book. Your personal beliefs are not the issue here. You made a statement claiming that accusing Christians of intolerance toward Pagans was a stereotype. Again, I tell you it's not. The Bible is clear on this. If you personally choose to tolerate pagans, I applaud your position. In fact, I encourage it. But don't tell me that the Bible teaches toleration toward Pagans. That's just not supported by the scripture.

Didn't Jesus say that not one jot or tittle of Mosaic law would be blotted out?

I said 'tittle." That was cool.

Ardith, with each new and "improved" translation of the Bible I often wonder if any core teachings were just plain wrong by being based on a pore translation. It's like that Robin Williams joke, what if instead of getting 72 virgins when they get to heaven, Muslims jihadists get 72 virginians. Is there anything missing or just plane wrong in the older translations?

BTW, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is not an accurate translation of the original. People forget that the standard King James Bible is a project done by a committee (read God's Secretaries) working for King James. There are lots of reasons why the original word "poisoner" was changed to "witch" when translated into the English of that time.

Well, I didn't forget it so much as ignore it.

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch

If "poisoner" works better for you, fine. The sense of the passage is that witchcraft is discouraged.

But I think it might be time to take this thread to another venue. It's not exactly on topic.

...pore translation.

pore translation -- hehe

I just have to interject my personal view that paganism is just about the silliest of all the religions I know about. Only chaos magicians and Scientologists are more out there.

Anyway, I hope representatives of all those faiths will also contribute 4,000 gifts to toys for tots. Religious or not, who cares? I would have been quite amused as a kid to get a talking jesus doll, or a talking Mao doll, and especially would have loved a little Ron Hubbard who would have told me how to get the Thetans out of my brain. I've always loved the absurd.

pore translation -- hehe

blah blah blah spell checker yada yada needs to check for meaning and typos too blah blah blah

and especially would have loved a little Ron Hubbard who would have told me how to get the Thetans out of my brain. I've always loved the absurd.

Or would they have just given a DVD of Battlefield Earth or even better a Tom Cruise action figure!?!

If you were buying gifts, I agree with you. However if you're a toy manufacturing company, and you already have toys sitting around, what's wrong with donating them? They cost you only the cost of materials and manufacture, so you can donate probably 5 times as many toys for the same price.

Brian--

Chaos magicians are indeed far more out there, but may resent being lumped with Scientologists. Nevertheless, I think they would be more than happy to send some toys. They may seem like odd toys, but I am sure the kids would like them. *evil grin*

Lorenzo Lamas, all the way.

Jim Morrison was waaay hotter. Don't do that. Bad.

Oh C'mon, when I first saw this image on the front page of newsvine, I was thinking, "How did the Buddy Christ and/or Kevin Smith make the AP wire?" But then I noticed that lack of thumbs up and overall buddy-ness.

On the side, does anyone think that the Buddy Christ isn't that bad of an idea?

I was thinking Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter personally.

Brian, to each his own.

Flaming sword? Sword of truth? I hear he does magic too. Be careful or he might cast the "Word of God" spell on you!

*In reality, I think the Christians that donated this gift need to see that their "gift" kills the spirit of Christmas. They are turning a good deed into a chance to convert someone. The same thing happened during the Tsunami in SE Asia. A bunch of Christians brought food and the like to help out - if the recipients agreed to accept Jesus as their lord and savior.

A bunch of Christians brought food and the like to help out - if the recipients agreed to accept Jesus as their lord and savior.

Whoa! Back up! Since when do Christian aid organizations deny aid to those that don't accept their beliefs?

I think I should clarify that as a Christian my goal at least isn't "conversion" or some sort of likemindedness for its own sake--truly believing (egads: please don't start a flame war over this, I'm being honest) that there are grave consequences for not believing in Jesus as he presented himself kinda forces us to try to tell people that there's a way to avoid those consequences.

Of course, people try to simplify our motives into some idiotic (and it would be idiotic were we to do it) game of brute proselytization and increasing our numbers, which is a gross oversimplification and an unfair characterization.

No, no, don't say it; I'll say it for you: "I'm what's wrong with American society today."

Please don't interpret this as an argument for the propriety of giving such dolls out indiscriminately. I'm still on the fence there.

Here is one article about just that issue. I'm sorry but it is true, one of the worst things I have seen Christians do in quite some time. Search Google for "Tsunami Christian Conversion" and plenty of other articles arise. Sure, not all Christians are like that - just like not all Muslims are terrorists. The problem is, when a group of people embraces mere acceptance of something with no proof and without question - those people are far more easily influenced by such ideas.

I'm sorry but it is true, one of the worst things I have seen Christians do in quite some time.

Wow. That's just abhorrent. I can't even fathom people saying "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ--or we won't feed you." I can't really dispute this one, I'm not a Catholic, honestly, so I hope there aren't reports of other evangelicals doing this, but wow. I support World Vision and Compassion International, which I think don't play this kind of game.

The problem is, when a group of people embraces mere acceptance of something with no proof and without question - those people are far more easily influenced by such ideas.

I see what you're saying but fail to see the relevance. I mean, as a Christian I've developed an intellectual (although contentious) base sufficient enough for me to be pretty convinced as to what I believe--that base in addition to personal experience. "Blind faith" is a charge that I hear alot, but I don't think it's as valid as people claim.

Anyway, as I say below, let's not get into the argument over whether Christianity is true or not, because that's far beyond the scope of our discussion here. Suffice it to say that we all--or at least you and I--disagree with the "no help unless you convert" line and the "let's give Muslims and Jews some Caucasian Jesus dolls--because that's what Jesus would do" line.

I'm sorry but it is true

Reminds me of that old hypocrite and fraud, Mother Teresa.

Reminds me of that old hypocrite and fraud, Mother Teresa

Yeah, you can certainly tell Mother Teresa was living high on the hog.

Yeah, you can certainly tell Mother Teresa was living high on the hog.

Campaigning in a referendum to lift a ban on divorce in Ireland by saying things like "There will be no forgiveness for you if you vote for this" and then defending Princess Diana's divorce because "no one was happy and I'm sure it's better that they separate." counts as hypocracy in my book.

What's wrong with this aid organization withholding food? It's their food, and if they want to give it to Christians first what's the problem with that?

What's wrong with this aid organization withholding food? It's their food, and if they want to give it to Christians first what's the problem with that?

Nothing, just don't have the balls to call it charity later on. Call it what it is-- bribery.

It's a nice normal Christian charity. If everyone would just hurry up and accept Jesus then they wouldn't have to turn anyone away.

I honestly can't decide if I'm writing this as a parody or not. I think I've had too much internet.

I honestly can't decide if I'm writing this as a parody or not.

Does it really matter? Life is just one big parody of itself anyway.

Yeah, and where did he get that kung-fu grip? Everyone knows he only got as far as India before he came back to the Middle East.

Now a Shaolin Jesus... that would totally kick ass. Who wouldn't want to play with that?

Have you read "Lamb", by Christopher Moore? If not, do. Jesus was a kung fu master. Everybody knows that.

Just think, a short trip out to the tree in the backyard and this doll can become... Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter!

That was one of the worst (and most enjoyable) movies ever. Mary Magnum in a red catsuit...*sigh*

How about Kung Fu Jesus. One of the best internet videos of its [or any] time.

". Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter!" I wonder if he can introduce me to Sarah Michelle Gellar....

No, Celestina. If I remember correctly, it was not kung-fu but Jew-do.

*groan*

My favorite part was how he would shout "Body of Christ" and be able to knock the vampires back.

The point is that a gift is either a sincere caring about other person--without trying to force some belief or something on them--or it's not truly a gift.

But can you see? Christ is central to Christians because we believe He is who He said He was--if that's true, then telling people is seen as one of the most valuable things we can do for them... That's the motivation, not "forc[ing] some belief or something on them"!

notmyown--
I do understand that you feel you are truly helping others with the words of salvation. I really do.
But can you see that some people do not agree with your belief, and that those people may choose other paths for their children? In giving a Christian toy to a poor family who may not share your faith, you are forcing them to choose between depriving their child of a toy (perhaps the only toy they will get for the holiday season) and allowing their child to be indoctrinated with a belief system they do not share.

Not picking on you, but you have reflected a widespread feeling about charity gifting--well, they don't have anything, so as long as they get something, anything, it's ok.

This is a completely valid point, and I think more valid than any of the points made about Christ v. Christmas on this thread so far. And really, I should know better having counted out lord knows how many boxes of Kraft Dinner (boxed mac and cheese) and canned cranberries in the few times I've helped with food drives.

Christ is central to Christians because we believe He is who He said He was

And you've reduced "Him" down to a kitchy novelty doll. If that says true devotion and faith then really I don't know what does.

But can you see? Christ is central to Christians because we believe He is who He said He was--if that's true, then telling people is seen as one of the most valuable things we can do for them... That's the motivation, not "forc[ing] some belief or something on them"!

I can certainly see and appreciate that. I was an evangelical Christian for eighteen years and know precisely where you're coming from. That's why I don't generally like to accuse Christians of intentionally doing misdeeds by attempting to indoctrinate other people--they truly believe they're just helping them escape hell and get to heaven. The problem is that all of those beleifs are based on absolutely nothing but blind faith. The problem is that your perceived charity, while performed with good intentions, is doing genuine harm to people if your beliefs happen to be wrong--and there is absolutely no sensible reason to believe that they're right, unless you count "I was taught this way since I was born" or, "I don't need proof, I just believe" as sensible reasons.

In giving a Christian toy to a poor family who may not share your faith, you are forcing them to choose between depriving their child of a toy (perhaps the only toy they will get for the holiday season) and allowing their child to be indoctrinated with a belief system they do not share.

I agree.

And you've reduced "Him" down to a kitchy novelty doll. If that says true devotion and faith then really I don't know what does.

I agree with what you mean here (since you're being facetious), except for the "you" part, because I don't particularly like all the kitsch surrounding Christianity in general these days.

The problem is that all of those beleifs are based on absolutely nothing but blind faith.

there is absolutely no sensible reason to believe that they're right

I understand your point and respectfully disagree, but I think we can agree that going down that road discussion-wise would bring us way off topic. I personally feel that I have relatively firm evidence for many of my convictions, evidence that you (and others) would dispute. Let's suffice it to say:

Christians think evangelism is noble and are trying to do good, not harm.
People who think that Christianity is false think evangelism can be harmful.

And I think I agree with you on the impropriety of distributing Jesus dolls en masse, especially by a nonreligious organization. Ha--saying it, the idea of Jesus dolls seems inherently and patently ridiculous.

except for the "you" part

Sorry notmyown... didn't mean to lump you in with one2believe... please consider my statement revised to reflect that. :-)

I'd be a lot more interested in the complaints about this doll if the complainers worked for some secular agency that is donating 4,000 toys to kids. There is no 'forcing' anyone involved in this whole process. It's giving.

One of the best things we used to do with my grandfather every Christmas season was go shopping for a toy to take to this specific Catholic orphanage in Annapolis. It was sincerely nice, and made me appreciate everything I was lucky enough to have. I always looked for fairly neutral gifts: balls, legos, etc. because I didn't know who would get it. But that was easy for me since I was standing in a toy store with lots of options. This company makes a few products. They're donating one of the few things that they have available to donate. Would it be better if they did nothing? Lighten up people.

I'd be a lot more interested in the complaints about this doll if the complainers worked for some secular agency that is donating 4,000 toys to kids. There is no 'forcing' anyone involved in this whole process. It's giving.

One of the best things we used to do with my grandfather every Christmas season was go shopping for a toy to take to this specific Catholic orphanage in Annapolis. It was sincerely nice, and made me appreciate everything I was lucky enough to have. I always looked for fairly neutral gifts: balls, legos, etc. because I didn't know who would get it. But that was easy for me since I was standing in a toy store with lots of options. This company makes a few products. They're donating one of the few things that they have available to donate. Would it be better if they did nothing? Lighten up people.

You are certainly intitled to you opinion, as are we all.
We will have to agree to disagree here though.
But I am glad you have such fond childhood memories of giving, lets hope they still hold true today.

Is it possible they get some kind of tax break for Toys for Tots that they wouldn't with giving to a church?

I don't think so. A charity is a charity to the IRS.

These toys are directed at children. From what I understand, children are not the best at exercising their critical faculties or rejecting a potential affront to their faith (or lack thereof).

My mother once told me as a small child that if I placed my picked boogers under my bed, giant cockroach-like bugs would be attracted by them and crawl all over me while I slept. It absolutely shook my beliefs.

From what I understand, children are not the best at exercising their critical faculties or rejecting a potential affront to their faith (or lack thereof).

I'm just going to point out that this is almost the exact same argument that certain parents give when they get upset that schools or other government institutions shove pro-homosexual or pro-evolution material down kids throats. Not that there's anything wrong with that (sorry, I just saw that Seinfeld rerun).

And from what is published in scientific journals, children are better at thinking than we give them credit for. Contextually, there is a huge difference in listening to your mother (verified authority figure) and listening to a doll (doll). I don't think that we're giving kids too much credit to say that they won't change their beliefs because a vaguely humanoid hunk of plastic tells them to.

So, you want you God to be a stupid toy that's thrown into a toy box and a kid has fights between it and GI Joe?

Jesus vs. Shadowstorm? Or those twins who could feel each others pain? That's a battle for the ages...

Who do you think would win in a fight between Jesus and Muhammad? Jesus and Muhammad Ali?

Does anyone remember "Celebrity Death Match?" Did they ever do one with Jesus? That would be so cool.

Closest I ever sqaw was Ghandi vs Ghengis Khan. That totally rocked. But then I didn't see all of them.

Who do you think would win in a fight between Jesus and Muhammad?

Well, Jesus was god, while Muhammad was just his profit. Advantage, Jesus.

Jesus and Muhammad Ali?

Ali.

Jesus or Mike Ditka?

Ditka, totally.

Ditka, totally.

Trick question. Ditka is god, and by the Holy Trinity property, Jesus.

If Ditka is God then why didn't he know better than to waste all of those 1st round picks on Ricky Williams?

He only wasted one first round pick on Ricky Williams, its just that he also wasted one of every other round as well... But they did trade him like four years later to the Dolphins for two firsts and maybe a second and some random other picks. So in the end it was a net gain in value for picks traded.

Ditka or Chuck Norris?

What we've got here is, a failure to communicate…

Such a great movie. (I know the song isn't just in that movie, but I couldn't help mentioning it now.)

I prefer Willy Porter's Jesus on the Grille:

I saw Jesus on the grille
Of a southbound Peterbilt
Catchin' bugs between his teeth,
Glowin' for everyone to see.

He dont stop at no tollbooths-
the state troopers let him roll on through.
Folks stop and stare at his long flowing hair
And his gold-capped tooth!

i saw Jesus on the grille,
rolling down the interstate,
and i know we wont be late, no darling,
with the potentate of hauling freight

Refrain: Talking Jesus, riding on the grille--
talking Jesus, blessing every roadkill--
talking Jesus, giving points for good behavior--

I have been redeemed by the 75 mph Savior.

...not like James Brolin in Amityville Horror? or is that just me

Um, excuse me sir, but my Jesus was NOT a towel-head.

errrrrrr Danny, you're kidding, right? was the satire mode on? eeeeeck...

Haha, yes. I even made multiple comments in this thread making clear that I'm not a Christian; why would I be claiming him as my Jesus? :P

Toys for Tots doesn't donate just to Christian kids--which is entirely the point. It is not a Christian organization. It was founded around Christmas, but it has long since extended its reach.

No, but I can...

Really? It seems more like a deliberate attempt to donate 4,000 dolls to children in my view.

vicaxp, next to my suggestion above (distribute through a church toy drive) this would be my preferred use for these -> Christ-bombs?
LOL

I love the name!

I was just looking at the pic of that dol and it finally came to me who this damn thing looks like! Isnt that Barry Gibb in a robe!? Yuck! LOL!

I think it would be pretty cool. Same as the Jesus dolls.

No, but lets try an experiment. If we put all the dolls in say a cave for a while, woud they be there when we went back for them?

True...but you can still put makeup on him and sew him a fancy new outfit. I am seeing something with sequins and maybe a plunging neckline. I suspect Barbie's shoes are never going to fit on his feet, though.

I don't care unless I can braid his hair. He is dead to me.

What if it was an Ed Gein figure, complete with comments at the push of a button along the lines of "I like a dead skin mask', and 'killing people is fun' message. I'm sure some kids would love it, does that make it something society ought to support? I realise this sounds fascetious but I'm just using an extreme to illustrate the point, the 'message of Jesus' is not one of innocence when it teaches kids a warped perspective of reality, and if parents/guardians use this toy to re-inforce their indoctrination of the young then I think it is a shame to see a government funded agency behind it all.

I guess we disagree on several levels, and I'm OK with that.

Do you have that Ed Gein doll? I would totally buy it from you. How much?