Discussion (53)¬

  1. nat says:

    This one is brilliant. I think i’m going to print it and put it on my desk…

  2. Dick M. says:

    This was good up to the “dick” part. Why not re-do it with a different ending, leaving out the “dick” and using “penis” or some such word.

  3. jONES. says:

    Nope, i like it just the way it is. Don’t change a thing.

  4. r00db00y says:

    Old one this. Or rather, new way of telling a joke you already told in the strip some time back.
    That said, I never did understand the whole “Christ died for our sins” bit so thanx for clearing that up for me.

  5. Dick M. says:

    Instead of toying with dicks, you should work more on the idea of how there is a “sacrifice” if Jesus comes alive again. Besides “Peter” would have worked better than “Dick”. I don’t recall any Dick’s in the Church. Jesus did not have a disciple by that name.

  6. louis says:

    as long as we’re nitpicking, my understanding of ‘dick’ is a jerk–like ‘prick’.

    I don’t think of idiots as being de facto dicks.

    but using penis doesn’t make sense either.

    still funny, though.

  7. Dick M. says:

    Actually, I think “peter” would work as both a synonym of penis and as a play on Peter. Can we get that change made, please?

  8. JohnnieCanuck says:

    It works best the way it is. Neither penis nor Peter is an improvement. I do agree that it doesn’t flow as smoothly as usual, though.

    The topic hows you can’t expect much from a committee, even back in the day of the Nicene Council. One wonders just how their politicking got them to the point that they would declare that an omniscient god created everything, knowing that the apple was going to get eaten and he would have to torture himself to prevent himself from punishing his creations with unbearable pain for eternity.

    And then they declared that god the holy ghost was looking over their shoulders to make sure they had gotten it right.

    It boggles. It just boggles.

  9. Dick M. says:

    Who draws these comics anyway? Does he/she read/reply to these comments?

  10. Diogenes says:

    Actually I think most of these comments are what we called in the old days “trolls”. They couldn’t be real could they……. could they????

  11. Diogenes says:

    Anyway, some of the comments are so unreal they are almost as funny as the ‘toons sometimes!
    But it’s lucky that Christians don’t have Fatwas or ………..
    Oh, that’s right they do….

  12. Peter J. Penis says:

    I agree with Johnniecanuck. It works just fine the way it is. Don’t change it.

  13. Trevor says:

    I’m thinking alcohol played a part in the formation of this strip.

  14. prozacville says:

    I’m thinking ‘genius’ played a part in the creation of this strip.

  15. carolita says:

    I’ve always wondered how anybody could get wrapped up in a religion in which a father slaying his own son for the sins of other people, and at the height of his career, no less. That sure sets a very bad example to Christians, I’ve always thought. Very very bad precedent. I’m glad I’m nobody’s son.

  16. Dick M. says:

    And it was a peter that carried on the tradition.

  17. mags says:

    Ah yes, peter means stone doesn’t it, or was that stoned? Not in the biblical sense…

  18. JayBee says:

    Ah! Ah!
    The author outdid himself here

  19. JayBee says:

    Speaking of morality, I think the author’s next strip should feature some picking on muslims!
    Maybe these verses from the Holy Quran (holey?) would inspire something (4:15 and 4:16)

  20. Doc Dish says:

    Unfortunately for those that prefer ‘Peter’, its use as a synonym for ‘penis’ is not well recognised outside of the US, so the joke would fail. ‘Dick’ is more recognisable throughout the English-speaking world.

  21. TB says:

    I LOL`d so hard.

    Quran can have its verse bashed with the sun sinking into a lake.

  22. Dick M. says:

    Only a Peter would say that ‘peter’ is a less recognized synonym for penis.

  23. JohnnieCanuck says:

    M would be a pretty large size for a bra or an athletic cup, Dick. Are you sure you are not overcompensating?

  24. Dick M. says:

    It’s just that “peter’ is such a more appropriate synonym and also a better word to use in this cartoon because of the play on the churchly Peter.

  25. jONES. says:

    Dick, did you actually READ the strip? “Only a Peter would believe in it…” Kind of falls short as the insult it was intended as, doesn’t it? Or maybe I’m just being a dick…

  26. Gwenny says:

    See the link above. It explains that “dick” is a pejorative term that refers to an abrasive or inconsiderate person. In this context it can be used interchangeably with “jerk”. The variant dickhead can also be used. The term is literal, referring to the individual as a penis. Therefore, my friends, DICK is the ONLY word that COULD be used to convey all the nuances of the pun.

    Sorry, live with it.

  27. Dick M. says:

    Actually a Peter DID believe in it, that’s why it works better—and a peter is literal also and is a BETTER word to use in this cartoon. Where is the guy/gal who draws this cartoon and what is his/her take on this thread? Why the silence? Peterbreath?

  28. Brian says:

    Very funy as written and absolutely appropriate. They dont call them “Peter and fart jokes.”

    Dick and fart jokes FTW!

  29. hotwater says:

    These comments are almost as funny as the strip was! Is that guys name really Dick? Hilarious!!

  30. Dick M. says:

    No my “real” name is not Dick. I won’t mention what it is. But Dick is my “real” nickname. Wanna guess why? Nope. If that’s what you were thinking, then you would be wrong. So your name is Peter, right? Worth a shot.

  31. simon says:

    My boss’ name is Richard, and he’s a Dick. With a capital D. Was there a Richard in the bible?

  32. Dick M. says:

    No, but there was a Peter.

  33. DinahA says:

    As Peter is NEVER used as a name for the penis in Britain, the joke would not have worked. The author is British, so it’s not surprising that he uses a name for the penis that we in Britain actually use.

  34. Dick M. says:

    Well, if that’s so, then why not use “cock”. They’ve got Cockneys in Britain don’t they?

  35. jONES. says:

    I think Dick just doesn’t want you using his name as a punchline… Which is ironic considering he’s on his way to becoming a punchline just from all these posts about Dicks…

  36. Dick M. says:

    By the way, are you the famous C. O. Jones?

  37. Don says:

    Sorry, mate, ‘dick’ is the appropriate locution in England.

    Peterhead is a town in Aberdeenshire.

    Dickhead is …

  38. Dick M. says:

    A case can be made that in Britain they need to learn to speak proper English. It seems that those folks may actually not know what tool they use for pissing and fornicating. At least the guys. If the Brits get the male part wrong, imagine what the situation with the gals might be.

  39. jONES. says:

    That’s good… We need to teach the English to speak English… wow there is just all sorts of Irony on this page…

  40. Dick M. says:

    As I asked a couple clicks back, are you the famous C. O. Jones?

  41. jONES. says:

    maybe… it depends… do you owe me money?

  42. Dick M. says:

    Just as I suspected, a waffler.

  43. hotwater says:

    Dick, would it be OK to leave it as Dick if you changed your nickname? How about Rick? Rich?

  44. Dick M. says:

    No. I have a cousin named Rich and bro-in-law named Richard. I did not nickname myself. So I am Dick and always will be. But who in hell are you, “Hotwater”? Who are you in hot water with and what about?

  45. jONES. says:

    well you’d be the only rick on here…

  46. ToddAwful says:

    Someone stronger voluntarily takes on the punishment of someone weaker because the stronger can survive the punishment and the weaker cannot. Why so quick do dismiss what you don’t understand? That’s the same dogmatism of a 6 day creationist.

  47. Paper Hand says:

    Todd: How is it just to punish another person? If you really do believe that, I sure hope you’re never on a jury, because apparently justice will be served if *someone* is punished for a crime, no matter whether or not it’s the person who did it.

    I think the most logical interpretation of the whole crucifiction story is that God, in the form of Jesus, was atoning for his own sins, paying the price for his general assholery in the Old Testament. Then everything makes sense. God realized he was an asshole, and so he accepted torture and death to make it up to his people, and gave eternal life as compensation for the suffering he’d inflicted upon them from the days of his absurdly over-the-top response to Adam and Eve breaking the “Don’t eat that fruit” commandment.

  48. ritchan says:

    This is effing brilliant.

  49. mohamed says:

    wie denk je wel dat je bend

  50. Tom says:

    To Paper Hand: Your interpretation is actually very close to one modern theological interpretation of the crucifixion. God punishes himself for our sins to show the absurdity of sacrifice – because no sacrifice can ever satisfy God to forgive sins. Once you believe that, then you can also see the absurdity of making deals with God (If you help me do this, then I will do etc.). God doesn’t want sacrifices, only unconditional love. That’s quite a revolutionary idea, especially in the first century AD.

  51. Bagpuss says:

    Happy 201st!

  52. CrookedHead says:

    The creator creates. The consumer thinks their thoughts. It’s not exactly tasteful to tell the creator to change their own creation.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.