Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "Maybe It's All Bullshit"

Original Song Title:

"Thank You For The Music"

Original Performer:


Parody Song Title:

"Maybe It's All Bullshit"

Parody Written by:

Phil Alexander

The Lyrics

OK, maybe I'm pushing this bible-bashing too far - but hey, I've not even started to redress the balance yet, when you consider how many songs there are putting the opposing viewpoint. If anybody wants to argue, please follow the link at the bottom.
I'm trained in science, so when I go looking for truth
Faith ain't enough, I always insist that there's proof
And I've often wondered, was Christ so renowned
'Cause no-one wrote nothing while he was around
The first gospel appears
After time-lapse of seventy years

So I think
Maybe it's all bullshit, pure invention
There's too many errors to mention
Who did write about it, I ask in all honesty
Why's it in Greek?
And the whole "Gospel of Mark" - who was HE?
So now I reckon that it's bullshit
It's sheer inaccuracy

Jesus, they say, was born December twenty-fifth
Seems coincidental and predated by Mithras's myth
At Mithras' birth, shepherds gathered around
Hey, isn't THAT a familiar sound
From those Christmas-y songs
At least one of them's got to be wrong

So I say
Yes, I think it's bullshit, I don't believe it
A billion do - how'd they achieve it?
Jesus came from Nazareth - believed by so many men
But then again
Looks like there wasn't a "Nazareth" then
So I say Yes, I think it's bullshit
It sounds like shit to me

Don't get me started on the whole myth of virgin birth
It's just another tale from Mithras' legend
What a lie, what a hype, what a church!

So I say
Total utter bullshit, the whole damn bible
None of it is verifi'ble
So many folks live by it, I've never quite understood
Isn't it odd
That this charade is called "The Word of God"
And so I say that it is bullshit
Sure sounds like shit to me

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 

In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.

Voting Results

Pacing: 3.7
How Funny: 3.9
Overall Rating: 3.9

Total Votes: 7

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   2
 2   0
 3   0
 4   1
 5   4

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

Rick D - April 17, 2004 - Report this comment
Wheee, are you gonna get it for this one. If you don't already know about it look up "The Queen Jane's Bible", by Doug Rankin. He spent 10 years translating and editorializing one what the Good Book really means. At first it seems very offensive and adult, and he does mock many parts. He spends a lot of effort pointing out the dark and ridiculous aspects. Any true believer would dismiss it as blasphamy. But Mari and I have compared random passages, and it is basically accurate. Check the website, it's a real eye-opener.
Robert J. Pagliaro - April 17, 2004 - Report this comment
I don't know the original song but you're such a great writer Phil, so I just assume that it paces with the original. Loved it. As an agnostic, I'm not anti-god, I'm anti-organized religion (for myself). Regarding: "Jesus, they say, was born December twenty-fifth" - may I recommend to you, Rick D and Mari: "Angels & Deamons" and "The DaVinci Code", both by Dan Brown. (If any of you don't thank me for the recommendation after reading them, I'll refund your money.) bob
Know 1 can hear you dream - April 18, 2004 - Report this comment
What´s this Mithras' myth/legend you refer to? Any link to a not too long description?
Claude Prez - April 18, 2004 - Report this comment
What Robert said: DKOS and all that but still a great read. I almost never read fiction (well, except for stuff I read with my kids) but got The DaVinci Code for Christmas and loved it; I may have to check out that other one too. PS-- Your recent tangent has inspired me to finish one I've had in the works for awhile; it should be in the next update.
John the Grunt - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
To set you straight on a few points og historical accuracy: The first gospel was written 29 years later, not 70. It was written in Koine Greek because that's what the Jews spoke at the time. Jesus was not born December 25th, that date appears NOWHERE in the bible. In fact, since the Jewish calendar does not correspond to ours, it would be impossible to assign an exact date to his birth. The bible indicates he was born in early autumn, perhaps late august or early september. Nazareth was a tiny village so it is not surprising that its existance cannot be corroborated by archaelogical sources. Other places in Jesus life, like Bethlehem, Bethany, Chorazin and Jerusalem all can be independently verified. And its obvious that you have never read the bible. Isaiah 40:22 says the earth was round. It was written (scientifically verified by the dead sea scroll discovery of 1949) two thousand eight hundred years ago. Job 26:7 says the earth hangs on nothing (a profound statement considering it was written when the egyptians were the world power, and contending that the earth was part of the 'sky' and the stars were 'other parts' ofthe sky. The Hebrew law code had laws that protected against diseases, containing scientific knowledge noone knew back then. The Book of Daniel foretold the rise of the Greek and Roman empires. History has shown that when Alexander the great entered Jerusalem, the jews were able to show him the prophecy in the book of Daniel that said the greek power would do just that.
Phil Alexander - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Wrong, John - the only thing you've outright contradicted is the timing of the Gospel of Mark (whoever "Mark" was), and the best sources available place the writing of the first gospel after the destruction of the Great Temple of Jerusalem, which was well-documented as being in AD70. If you really want to argue further, follow the link at the end of the song.
John the grunt - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Jesus died in AD 33 so there is only 37 years between that and AD 70
Phil Alexander - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
But Jesus had been around for 70 years before anybody wrote anything - why'd you have to wait till he's dead before writing about it?
John the Grunt - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Actually, lots of the new testament was written not long after Jesus death. James was written before the year 62, all 14 of Pauls epistles were written before the year 64, and Peters two epistles were written before the year 65. The gospel of Matthew was probably written in the 50's, and it may have been the first gospel account. Another point to examine regarding why all this stuff was written decades after jesus death is that christians were on the run for about 20 years after jesus death. They were persecuted by Romans and Jews alike. They had little time to distribute organized literature. This in no way invalidates the eyewitness accounts, though. Consider this: How easy would it be for someone to write a fictional account of a well known figure who died in the 1970's? It would be impossible. People alive today remember the events of that persons life and would be around to refute inaccurate statements. No first century historical documents have been found that dispute the gospel accounts of Jesus life. There are only secular historical references that prove Jesus existance and his martrydom at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Oh, and you never answered my comments on the bibles forward looking scientific accuracy either.....
John the grunt - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Another thing that irritates me about bible critics is their insistence that the bible contradicts itself. What amazes me is how widespread this belief is without a single shread of evidence. No-one seems able to show me a specific example of how/when/where the bible contradicts itself. In fact, the best anyone has ever been able to do is to compare an account in Matthew where it says that an army officer approached Jesus to ask a favor with one in Luke where it says that the army officer sent a servant to approach Jesus to ask the favor. Is that the best you can do?It's not a contradiction, simply different writing styles. Luke, a doctor, was more detail oriented, and chose to record that the army officer asked the favor through a servant. So when people tell you the bible contradicts itself, ask them where.........
Melhi - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Nicely written, Phil.
Paul Robinson - April 19, 2004 - Report this comment
Phil - Good read, DKTOS. Thanks.
David Chrenko - April 20, 2004 - Report this comment
Hi Phil - As far as proof goes, 3000 fulfilled Biblical prophesies, over 300 by Jesus alone, is a good place to start. Sixty-six seperate writings covering a period of thousands of years, crossing social class, and yet operating in complete cohesion with one another. Logic? - Is it logical to believe that from nothing came something - completely on its own, without an architect? The complexity of our universe and our planet testify to the necessity of a creative intellect far beyond anything we can imagine, and certainly not the product of self-initiation on the part of inert matter.That's what you need to believe if there is no eternal, self-existent being who created matter. If you ever would like to converse on the subject via e-mail, Phil, I'm always happy to oblige.
Phil Alexander - April 21, 2004 - Report this comment
Sorry, David, but I still don't buy it. As I said, if you'd like to argue, try here: (the link at the end of the song).
John the grunt - April 22, 2004 - Report this comment
Looks like Phil doesn't want to hear it....Oh well.....
Phil Alexander - April 23, 2004 - Report this comment
Phil is quite willing to listen to a reasoned argument; whether he is swayed by it depends on the reasoning involved - take David's point about the complexity of the universe: it seems to me totally illogical to assume that the complex structures which make up matter and the universe must by reason of their inherent complexity have been created by something which must therefore be even more complicated. I don't understand how the universe came into being, but trying to explain it by positing a creator is not an explanation, it's a cop-out.

In a similar vein: take prophesy, for example: I have just explained in this parody why I'm no longer convinced that the Jesus in the bible even existed, that the stories written about him are just that - so just how are the prophecies he is written about as fulfilling supposed to validate the truth in the Bible at all? It's a circular argument (a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you like)

And seeing as I'm breaking my rule about arguing here, I thought I'd add this... John, how on earth can you suggest the bible contains no contradictions - if nobody has offered you proof before: Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
...those seem fairly contradictory to me... or how about:
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
(which is stealing, in the name of the Lord - does this make it OK?) There are dozens, probably hundreds, more. But I guess there are none so blind as those who would not see.
John the Grunt - April 23, 2004 - Report this comment
Phil, Exodus 20:13 was a command forbidding murder. Execution in the name of God was a different thing entirely. Moses was comanded at Exodus 32:27 to execute those who, after seeing God's deliverance at the hand of the egyptians , worshipped another god. As for Luke 19, they were not stealing the colt, they were taking it with the owners consent..... Answer me this: If the Bible is NOT of divine origin, how do you explain Isaiah 40:22, which (as verified by the dead sea scrolls) says the earth is round
Phil Alexander - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
So "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean it, really... I must admit, I thought it was pretty explicit; similarly, where in Luke 19 does the owner actually give consent, or is it even asked for? As for divine origin being a prerequisite for knowing the earth is round... puh-lease - if the Greeks managed to work that out before Jesus was around, why shouldn't Isaiah? Can't you see that what you're doing is twisting words to fit your preferred interpretation: if this is supposed to be the word of God, how come the thing is open to interpretation at all? You'd think that an all-knowing being would be able to phrase things in such a way as people could agree what it means; or at the very least wouldn't be so stupid as to use human prophets who were incapable of framing an unabiguous sentence.
Phil Alexander - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
..PS Just looked it up: Isaiah 40:22 "...the circle of the earth..." - circle, as in pizza?
Rick D - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
We looked it up too, Phil. It says circle. Which can be standing on a mountain and taking in all you survey. I really recommend the "Queen Jane's Bible" It's just as accurate (more to some of us), and a lot funnier.
John the grunt - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
Actually, the hebrew language in use 2800 years ago did not have different words for circle and sphere....context dictated... Also, consider this: Under the mosaic law, israelites were commanded to circumcise their males on the 8th day. Not only has it been proven that in an ancient world (where medical science was extremely primitive) that circumcision prevented many types of infection, but it is also now known that the bodies clotting agent reaches a peak on the eighth day after birth, meaning that the operation on the eighth day would have the fastest healing time.....
:.: - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
Methinks there are people who believe in the bible and will never be convinced otherwise no matter what evidence is presented to them, and there are people who do not believe in it and will not believe in it no matter what evidence is presented to them
Phil Alexander - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
John - your point about circumcision in no way shows divinity, merely trial and error.

:.: - I could be convinced, if the evidence were there. But it ain't, so I ain't.
neminem - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
*cough**cough* - No contradictions? Have 330 of them (some better than others, of course).
John the grunt - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
That site is obviously the tool of those who choose not to believe. I didn't bother to look through all 330. I looked through the first few. They are simply examples of how doubters twist things. For example, one of the first ones there is did jesus appear to 10,11 or 12 apostles after his death. They then refer to three separate events that mention three different numbers, as though this is a contradiction. One mentions that the eleven faithful apostles minus thomas (so 10) were in a locked room. Another mentions all 11 being in Galilee. A third, written much later, refers to him appearing to all 12, but giving no specifics of when, nor indeed stating that he appeared to all 12 at once. Evidently, this one refers also to his appearance before the apostle Paul on the road to damascus. Another one was: Did Abraham have more than one son. The scriptures say Yes. But Abraham had a second son, by a concubine. Concubines had no legal rights, nor did their sons in the event that the father also had a legitimate son. Therefore, legally, Abraham had only one son. The second was recorded as being born, but not counted as part of his lineage. Not a contradiction....I'm sure I could go through all 330 like that....
John the grunt - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
Here are some more: It mentions God creating animals first then humans. Then it points to a scripture where God 'brought animals forth from the ground to adam to name'. Contradi tion? Of course not. Animals were created first. But They were introduced to Adam for the purpose of naming them. Another: Is Adultery wrong? Yes, of course. The bible condems it. This site points to a passage where Hosea was commanded to remain married to his adulterous wife. Contradiction? REading JUST this text, you might think so. But in fact, Hosea was being commanded to do this for a reason. God was showing by example how Israel, referred to in the bible as God's 'wife' many times, was still loved by God despite Israels worshipping other gods. In God's eyes, it was like adultery. Yet he forgave her. In no way does that make adultery OK, and in no way is it a contradiction....
John the grunt - April 24, 2004 - Report this comment
Another one. Was Abraham declared righteous by faith or works? People say James and Paul disagreed on this. Not the case. They simply emphasised two parts of the same coin. Rightrousness is by FAITH, not works. However, a person who has faith will have works, otherwise his faith is not real. Thus, both are right... Another one. Was Abiathar the father or son of Ahimilech? Simple. Haven't you ever heard of a man naming his son after his father? It happens all the time. I am named after my grandfather. The events described as 'contradictions' happened decades apart so it is more logical to conclude that they were two different people, rather than to conclude that this is a contradiction. Also, many naming issues are easily resolved by understanding the nature of the times. At several points in bible history it was not unusual for someone to have two names. For example, from the times of Abraham to Moses, it was not uncommon to have a hebrew name and an egyptian name. Joseph was Zaphenath-panea. It was common also to have a birth name and a Godly name. Jacob was Israel. Abraham was Abram. Sarah was Sarai. Later, it was common to have a hebrew name and a babylonian or other pagan name. Saul was paul. Danial was Belteshazzar.
neminem - April 26, 2004 - Report this comment
Yeah, I will agree: some of them are just silly and can be obviously explained. But what would you say to, say, these?
Phil Alexander - April 26, 2004 - Report this comment
Hold on a sec...
#Actually, the hebrew language in use 2800 years ago did not have
#different words for circle and sphere....context dictated...
And you use this as PROOF of saying "the earth was a sphere" therefore the bible is divinely inspired? Sorry it's taken me so long to point out this pinnacle of logical thought... I'm bowing out of this discussion now: I can't compete with anybody who thinks like this.
John the grunt - April 26, 2004 - Report this comment
I don't use scriptures like that as proof of anything. They are simply single instances of a pattern of scientific accuracy that skip sceptics minds....OK, Eminem, here we go: Vineger: Sour wine IS vinegar, gall and myrrh were both agents used to make something bitter. It would be like one person saying 'pepper' and another saying 'cayenne'. Both are right, but one is more specific than the other... seen: In the cases where it says that God a'ppeared' to someone, each time, the 'appearance' was in that they were allowed to see a vision representing God. Humans cannot see God because is not a physical carbon-based being. In the case where Jacob wrestled 'God', christians and sceptics alike agree that the account in question referred to an Angel representing God. Slavery: I actually do not even see a contradiction here. Nowhere in the hebrew law code was it stated that Hebrews were not permitted to own slaves. One thing that must be understood about this code, however, was that God regulated their behaviour without necessarily banning things he disliked. For instance, he permitted Divorce in certain circumstances, though he 'hates' a divorce. He hates slavery too, but though he did not ban in in the hebrew law code, he strictly regulated it... Respect: Part of this 'contradiction' arises because of inaccurate translating, and part because of lack of understanding of context. God respects people in that he does not take away their dignity. He respects their free will. However, he respects no-one in their power or ability. Why should he? As almighty, he has nothing to fear from anyone. Perfect: Again, this springs from an inaccurate translation. The word translated 'perfect' in some of these circumstances is translated 'righteous' in most bible translations. Righteous means judged by God to be 'in the right'. Perfect means without flaw. Only Jesus died perfect, but many people died righteous (see hebrews 11)
Phil Alexander - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
"They are simply single instances of a pattern of scientific accuracy that skip sceptics minds..."
That leads to new definitions of "scientific" and "accuracy" with which I was not formerly aware - John, I'd give it up if I were you: all you're doing is highlighting to anyone who has the time to read through all this how woolly your thinking is, and how you seem to be happy to extract "Truth" from ambiguity.
John the grunt - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
I will be the first to say that there is deliberate ambiguity about certain parts of the bible. In fact, Jesus did not teach his prophecies publicly. He spoke by using illustrations. People who WANTED to hear could ask him privately what the illustrations meant. People who were naysayers would not get it. It's a persons choice. God does not impede our free will. Meantime, it's amazing how people say the bible is scientifically inaccurate. No-one has ever been able to show me a case where that it true. In most cases, peoples perceptions are colored by statemetns like "the bible says god made the earth in six days six thousand years ago." Not true. The bible says that God made the earth before the six 'days' began. And in Hebrews it sayus that we are still living in the seventh 'day' indicating that the six days were not literal, but represented long periods of time. Also, consider these examples: Archaelogists said for centirues that the bible was wrong in saying that Belshazzar was the last king of babylon (see book of Daniel). History said Nabonidus was. However, it was recently discovered that in his later years, Nabonidus got a travelling bug, and left the city and the kingship in the hands of his son, Belshazzar. A document written by Nabonidus to that effect was found. Also, it was claimed by archaelogists for centuries that Jericho didn't exist at the time the Bible said Joshua felled its walls. A recent expedition did indeed find evidence of an 'earthquake' in Jericho in the century the bible says it was destroyed. Also, it is known that the book of Isaiah was written before the exile in Babylon. Yet, that book named Cyrus the Persian as the conquerer of babylon and as the one who allowed the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem to proceed.(Isa Ch 45) I find constant evidence of the Bibles scientific accuracy, I hear a lot of people disputing its accuracy, yet I can never find a compelling case showing a scientific inaccuracy.
John the grunt - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
I have just discovered something that makes total sense!!! The site constantly refers to 'Jehovah's Witnesses.' It does not have categories for other relogions, but in reviewing the books of the new testament it mentions the Watchtower group many, many times. This makes total sense. Jehovahs witnesses take literally the scriptures that state that unrepentant wrongdoers must be excommunicated. Adulterers, drunkards, child molesters are routinely excommunicated from this religion, and they sometimes get very angry about it. I think a lot of the contributors to this site .... actually have a political agenda. They then spread their venom to those who already have a sceptical disposition anyway.....I still challenge anyone to find an actual biblical lie or contradiction.....
dude - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
why is all this religious nonsense being debated on a HUMOR SITE? go play on some religious board, no one friggin cares
Rick D - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
Hey Dude. Don't make it bad. If you don't find this funny, I'll bet you never liked "All In The Family", either.
Lazurus Long - April 27, 2004 - Report this comment
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
dude - April 28, 2004 - Report this comment
I'm not above laughing at some self-righteous religious reject who preaches endlessly (and I happen to buy the All in the Family dvds as they come out), but this guy seriousily needs to back away from the bible and get a life or something.
John the grunt - April 28, 2004 - Report this comment
The bible gives meaning to life 'dude'
dude - April 29, 2004 - Report this comment
I don't need a book to give meaning to my life. My life has meaning through my actions. If you want to believe that praying and singing somehow give meaning to your life, then by all means do so. Go hang out with like minded folks, and stop bothering to 'convert' the poor people who don't share your view. We're plenty happy without your mumbo jumbo, and reciting bible verses aren't going to convice us otherwise.
John the grunt - May 05, 2004 - Report this comment
For someone who wants this discussion stopped, 'dude' comes back here often enough....
Ingeborg - September 07, 2004 - Report this comment
I'm an ABBA fan and a follower of a non-Christian religion, but my reactions to the song as a whole are mixed: on the purely technical side, I can say only that the message sometimes interfered with the pacing. On the topical side, I might agree with some of your theology--yet I can put myself in a Christian visitor's shoes too, and understand why they'd feel offended. No vote this time, for the sake of keepiing the peace...

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 2774