Talk:God/Funny version

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Talk:God
Revision as of 13:55, November 17, 2007 by Zork Implementor L (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

edit From Pee Review

I’ve been trying my best to make a, well, unique? article about how pissed off I am with God. This is apparently inappropriate for the God article itself so I was instructed to create a new article. That I did but I’m still not getting much support from all the hard line militant religious extremists who dominate this lousy dump. Can somebody help? Do what you will to the article, to make it “appropriate” for a piss take of an encyclopaedia. Thanks and my unlimited love to y’all. Weri long wang 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Change the title. Claiming an article is "funny" in the title looks bad - as does setting up a comparison with a pre-existing article. Call it, e.g. "The Truth About God".
  2. Really mine it for the funny. Claiming that God is a "vindictive psychopath" has been done before and isn't too funny because God apparently is supposed to do good things to. Claiming instead that God is, e.g. "A highly confused omnipotent power who wants to be nice but can't seem to handle his sudden outbursts of psychotic violence" - gets closer to the truth and seems, to me at least, more amusing as a result.
  3. Focus on the topic, which is attributes of God, not society. The stuff about homosexuals and racism suffers because it is only tenuously linked to "God".

--Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 04:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Honestly, I liked this article overall, Sir Wangness. It's pretty funny and most of your points are humorous. However, there are parts of this article (talking about Amerika that, no offense, sound like they were written by a 15-year old kid looking to piss off his parents and get attention from his friends by saying how much he hates god. If that's the tone you were looking to set, you did pretty well. It's just, if I were you, I'd take some of the obvious anger out (god put amerika in control of the world, thanks a lot god) and replace it with some more subtle stuff. ("In an act of righteous vengeance, god gave his chosen people, the Amerikanites, the traditional place of the Canaanites, whom he cast away, and then did he bless the Amerikanites with fruitfulness and bountiful harvests, and yea, did the Texans all gratefully praise his name, Amen.")Cigaro Cubano 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I are slightly embarrassed to critique this, as I have writed some similar things in God-articles. But I will say a bit anyway.

  • Good ideas with the Pyramids being the ears of colossal cats, God creating homosexuals because He's confused about his own sexuality, the description of God in a motorized wheelchair, etc.
  • The political material, while connected to God by way of the claims of religious fundamentalists, seem to me to detract from the main discussion of God.
  • I would simplify: identify the absolute core concept of each section. Focus on God and not on current events; your eye is on aeternity and not on the last four years. And finally, as Nabokov said "murder all your darlings" -- cut anything that you think is just precious but which does not address the core points.

(It's interesting to note that 2 years after Nabokov wrote that advice he was convicted of the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Darling and their children, Wendy, Michael, and John. Tinkerbell was an accomplice who turned states's evidence.) ----OEJ 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Truly, 'tis funny
Liberal humour is best.
But, could be cleaner.

</bad haiku>

I suggest OEJ's suggestions. The article is basically good, and has a satisfactory level of Bush-bashing. It only needs more religious focus and a little less current politics. Religious satire is often far more offensive amusing. --Cainad 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, the article, as it currently stands, seems really unoriginal to me. You can get all that from nonsatire news blogs, let alone people trying to be silly. I read it, and marked the things I thought were a bit original, to give you some pointers about what you did right. Then I went and read God, and realized they had all been left over from that. I would advise you to come up with a new angle, and try and work from there. This just comes off, as someone has said, like an angry 15 year old. I would suggest it comes off like an angry 15 year old who isn't terribly funny yet. --DrObvious 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects