My sweet Lord: Top ten religious treats

Joanna writes: Scripture candy and Bible bonbons - were these what King Soloman was talking about when he wrote

"Fraudulent food is sweet to a man, but afterwards his mouth is filled with gravel" - Proverbs 20 v 17? Decide for yourselves with our list of the top ten religious treats available.

These soft peppermint puffs allow you to learn a verse while sucking on a mint.

The seven foods of Deuteronomy, Wheat, Barley, Raisins, Honey, Figs, Pomegranates, Olive Oil, are packed into this Bible Bar providing "nutrition God's way".

Pass on the word with these breath fresheners wrapped in Biblical text

Or chew over some scripture with Biblegum

You can reach the world one cavity piece at a time with these Heart pops encased in scripture.

David, Samson and Moses rule over a jelly bean tube each

This peanut bar is "inspired by scripture" its name perhaps is less well thought through

The sacred cross dipped in synthetic sugar

Assuage your guilt by indulging in this God is Love Chocolate

And these don't even look appetizing

 

Comments

[joshua]

Anything for a buck, eh!

Do the Deuteronomy bars cause fire and brimstone breath? Do they lead to adult ADD, and aggressive, violent, xenophobic behaviour?

[Andrew Milner]

Indoctrinating children with this pernicious form of mind control before they are old enough to think for themselves borders on criminal child abuse. You need to stand back and look at yourselves. Bad enough being duped by this Mediaeval BS yourselves, but don’t impose it on others. Clearly you can’t handle the notion of mortality without inventing a comforting fantasy. Sad, sad, sad. Christianity is the greatest deception of all time. Makes 9-11 look like a game of charades where everyone got a little carried away.

[john]

Hilarious - what's next? The Job Chocolate bar - temptation for all the family? The Mary bar - the bar you can't take out of the wrapper? The God bar - you may have no other bar but this one?

Bet they taste dreadful, like those non-branded easter eggs you used to get from Auntie Agnes' local newsagent. That is also very apt as religion itself tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth

[Anthony OPL]

This is rather ironic. Not only are people fervently quoting verbatim the opinions and factual misrepresentations of a cult figure, but by doing so they exhibit the same characteristic indoctrination of which that figure accuses religious authorities. Fellow commenters, Dawkins has become your god! How does it feel to be religiously indoctrinated?

[Tom Painter]

Well said Anthony.

[LUKE]

Dawkins doesn't prescribe a religion. Instead he advocates free thought and scientific enquiry, leaving rational individuals to make up their own minds. Atheism has been around much longer than Dawkins, and so too will it be around long after Dawkins.

[Sarah]

wow - scratch the surface with an article about sweets and out pours incredible amounts of anger - talk about touching a nerve!
I'm a Christian and can laugh at this. I hope it's meant to be a joke.. if not, I apologise on behalf of Christians ;-)

[Pete]

No need to apologize, Sarah -- you didn't make these silly and (I'm sure) tasteless "goodies."

Can the vitriol, atheists -- the only rational position is agnosticism.

[Katie]

I'd hardly call it indoctrination. Kinda stupid some of them but hardly brain washing. When other parents buy disney sweets and such like is that brainwashing? Often it's what ther kids ask for!
I don't think that they are all a good idea, but the kiddie stuff is different.

[Suzie]

These are AWESOME! They're hilarious! Where can I buy some??

[Vicki]

I agree Sarah. Surely they have to be a joke? But don't think that they merit the kind of strong feelings that have come across so far..... I thought us Christians were the ones who were supposed to get het up over silly little things.........

[Jess H]

Wow, I didn't think people would be able to get so angry about sweets. Even I can't muster up any. If anything I thought the die hard Christians would think it was blasphemous but I have to say the Atheists are making us look bad here.

They are JUST sweets.

[Jane]

As a primary school teacher I see the huge merit of marketing to children in this way. As a Christian I also see the huge merit of marketing to children in this way. If you want children to remember something- stick it on a sweet. If you're not Christian...just don't eat them. Im just wondering when we'll get maths, english and science chocolates to make my job a lot easier!

[alan]

Pete - strictly speaking, we're all agnostics because we "don't know" the ultimate truths of our existence in the universe. OK?
But - listen carefully - a belief in a god is just about as rational as a belief in Father Christmas, pink unicorns, green men on Mars or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So what does this mean? It means that atheism - lack of belief in god, godlessness - is the only rational position in purely practical terms.
You see, it's possible to be an agnostic and believer at the same time. Or an agnostic and atheist at the same time as well.
That is why I'm - strictly speaking - like everyone else an agnostic. But in my everyday life, for practical and logical reasons, I am (and happily remain) an atheist - without a god.
Pete - I hope I've put this concisely and politely for you. No vitriol, you see.

[Chris]

What is wrong with you lot? Are you so sad that you'll allow a packet of sweets with scripture on the wrapping to have such a negative effect on you. Surely, life is more worthwhile than to have a "fit" over a packet of sweets. Stop being prejuduced. Don't worry, Be happy!

[Martin]

Actually Alan, were not all agnostics.
- Atheists believe that there is NO holy spirit or anything that created the universe at all.
- Theists believe in the God of Classical Theism. Being that God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful; and yes created everything.
- Agnostics believe in something, but not the God of Classical Theism or a religion.
Plus, you say that "ultimate truths of our existence in the universe". Well this is true, but where did the universe come from. Something must have created it; using Ockhams Razor, the simplest explanation is God. (I am not a religious person, just playing devils advocate. But i am an actual agnostic as i believe something must be there otherwise its all pointless, but not in this all powerful etc. God)

[alan]

Thanks for the reply, Martin, but I must beg to differ on several points.
a) It's irrelevant what theists believe or atheists don't believe. The fact is, nobody KNOWS, and that's what makes us all a-gnostics.
b) atheists don't "believe" anything, but I've explained this so often - I can't be bothered to do so again here.
c) I don't know where the universe came from or why. I admit it.
d) I don't have such a great need for an explanation that I have to invent one, i.e. some kind of god that did it all in some magical way.
e) Lots of people are so insecure that they do, however, need an explanation. In the course of history, countless explanations, countless gods, have been invented. Most have passed away with their inventors. Some, unfortunately still persist.
Martin, I know I perhaps sound arrogant or condescending. I'm not really. But I can't believe in any of these invented deities - even old Ockham's razor doesn't help me to. So I remain godless, an a-theist.

[Martin]

But thats the whole point. It doesn't matter if we know that there is a God or not; all that matters is if you believe. Agnostics BELIEVE in a something being there; regardless of whether it be a deity or not. Therefore i do fail to see your argument.

[Jess]

It's quite simple really you guys. Agnostics do not believe in something being there whether it is a deity or not. If you just pick up a dictionary you will find that agnostics confess that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. Quite sensible really, I bet they don't give this a moments thought because really, noone can ever know, so thinking about it is therefore a waste of time.

To be honest all this debate is a little tiresome (yes I realise I have partaken in such a discussion in the past), but all the believers know that the non-believers are not going to change their minds and vice versa, so I put to you, what's the point?

[alan]

Jess - what exactly was the point of your comment? (You have said no more - less, in fact - than I did in my comment two spots earlier.) Except to say that it's not worth commenting on - which is strange since you are commenting on it yourself.

[LUCAS]

‘Lots of people are so insecure that they do, however, need an explanation.’
The assumption that people who believe in God do so to compensate for a lack of security is a very trite kind of logic. If God does exist something tells me a ‘Higher Power’ might be beyond that kind of facile & risibly rigid generalisation. Comments like Alan’s only serve to highlight the limitations of reason. Of course, reason’s most favoured logical conclusion is agnosticism. So then you get those who don’t rationally know and choose not to believe (agnostics) and those who don’t rationally know yet choose to believe (believers). It’s within that space that the interesting dynamic happens. Sadly, that dynamic is lost on atheists who seem to enjoy locking themselves in irrational boxes.

[alan]

Lucas, when atheists reach what you term the "limitations of reason", they stop and admit that they "don't know".
Believers overstep the "limitations of reason" and adopt the irrational but comforting idea of a creator and an afterlife.
They go even further beyond the "limitations of reason" and claim they are in possession of the ultimate truths of our existence.
As this takes place beyond the "limitations of reason", atheists (like me) regard it as illogical and unreasonable.
What is irrational about that?

[Steven]

The main question for Christians is if Jesus was ressurected from the dead - without that, Christianity doesn't mean a thing. That issue is not about rationality, but historical evidence.
I am a Christian and I believe strongly that the historical evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as all recent arguements against the resurrection fall against reason and historical evidence.

As a 16 year old Christian, I find these bars rather amusing if anything. Certainly not offensive - I find nothing blasphemous in them. They're a bit of fun!

[Chris]

Ahh sweet Jesus. Finally some religion that doesnt leave a bad taste in the mouth!!!

[iain]

No child is going to fall for this rubbish! They'll consume the sugar and move on to sinning when they's good and ready!