Skip to main content

The Brick Testament


The Bible, done in Lego. I particularly like the Book of Job. And advice on stoning. This is officially the work of a Reverend, but is clearly a clever spoof. It certainly gets you to look at the Bible in a new way. Some bits are very funny.

This reminds me of Outrageous Tales From the Old Testament, as it's just the original, unvarnished text illustrated (with, I grant you, some rather tongue in cheek speech bubbles). The illustrations, being in an incongruous style, bring home just outrageous the tales really are.

Some nice stuff in the shop. Ships to U.K.

The amazon.com page for the book of the Ten Commandments contains this review:

This book, and the corresponding website, is written by an atheist, and the website contains disturbing Lego "creations" by the author that young children should not be exposed to. How irresponsible for this author to use children to advance his agenda regarding his lack of belief in God.

Ironic. Possibly this is itself a spoof comment? As I say, the book presents the original text, and illustrates it using Lego. How could showing illustrated passages of the Bible to a child be a problem? Because this really is the unvarnished text, revealed in all its gory horror and moral perniciousness - not the highly selective, Disney-fied version kids usually get in their "Bible Stories For Children."

Labels:

Comments

Freethinker said…
That's brilliant! Thanks for that.

Here is The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith's personal website: http://www.thereverend.com/
November 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said…
I thought you might have focused on this one about Stephen .

Looking forward to the Lego versions of other classics.
November 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more