Atheist funny man Ricky Gervais is set to grace the cover of New Humanist magazine’s September/October issue. Gervais is unapologetically an Atheist. And the cover is an obvious parody/mockery of Jesus’ crucifixion. Is it meant to be offensive? Probably.
You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. But no one has the right to never be offended.
Now, here’s where it will get tricky with some Christians. I suspect a double standard will rear its ugly head in the not so distant future. I am willing to bet all the money I can borrow that there will be an out-cry after a fashion from those in Christian circles of prominence decrying the magazine cover as blasphemous and incredibly offensive. Some may even demand a retraction due to the blasphemous and offensive nature of Gervais’ self-depiction.
You see, many Christians who are brave enough to evangelize, display proudly Christian symbology, or even defend and advocate for nativity scenes on public property will do so with a “you Atheists do not have a right to not be offended” type argument. And they’re right. And so is Gervais.
People do not have the right to not be offended. I hope the offense-inclined Christians remember this before protesting the magazine cover. Sure, Gervais is out to offend Christians and insult Christianity, and as far as that goes, he gets an “A”. But deep down he is an entertainer. He is playing to his crowd.
My questions to fellow Christians who may take enough offense to act are these: What do you expect from an Atheist in the entertainment business? And, if we are entitled to “offend” them with our message, why is he not entitled to do the same with his?
_______________________________
Related Article: Jesus “Art” Exibit Creates Outrage
Sifting Reality 
I prefer to ignore misbehaving children.
Good point about being offended / giving offense.
Side note: I’ve been meaning to blog on Gervais. He noted once that he switched to atheism after getting stupid answers to some reasonable theological questions. Now, Ricky was probably going to be an (at least temporary) Romans 1 poster boy anyway, but it shows how important good apologetics are. All Christians should be able to give some reasons for their faith (a la 1 Peter 3:15-16) and then be humble enough to say these seven powerful words if they get stumped: “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.” (And then they need to go find out.)
Well when you read his “why I’m an atheist” column you see his (like a good number of atheists) reasons are pretty shallow.
Although, I have to admit, aside from his ridicule of religion, I like him as a comedian, I think he is generally funny. The Office is my favorite show in tv.
religions not being compelling aren’t shallow reasons to be atheist, they are good enough reasons
everyone on earth is an atheists of some magnitude – and the same reason that you don’t consider Odin, Zeus and other gods
are the same reason why atheists go a step further and exclude yours along with you and the ones that you exclude for consideration
First, “religion not being compelling” is not the reason Gervais has given. I’ve read his reasons he has offered, and they are shallow.
Second, an Atheist is someone who believes no god(s) exist. Not just that some might and others dont. If someone believes any god exists at all, they are a theist of some sort no matter how many other gods they believe do not exist.
I also look forward to his next cover where he mocks Islam.
Well, there’s not much chance he’ll be beheaded for his mockery of christianity. But no one mocks islam like they do christianity.
You know what’s funny, mocking islam makes you an islamophobe. Mocking Judaism makes you an anti-semite. Mocking christianity makes you clever.
Anti- “smite”?!?! :oD
Otherwise, you hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. You can’t mock anyone except Christians, and for mocking them you get praised and on the cover of a magazine.
“I prefer to ignore misbehaving children. ”
Good thing you’re being a kind Christian and not arrogant or condescending at all.
“I also look forward to his next cover where he mocks Islam.”
He has.
Is this jihad-envy?
“You can’t mock anyone except Christians”
All religions are silly. Islam, Judaism and Christianity chief amongst them.
Happy?
You (and I) are relatively insignificant. The mere cartooning of Muhammad resulted in enough actual and threat of violence that others planning to do the same decided otherwise. Conversely, I hear “Piss Christ” is still on display and considered “art”.
Look up ‘National Draw Muhammad Day’.
And if you want to play the “look up” game, thereligionofpeace.com has already won that game on this issue.
“Is this jihad-envy?”
Will you please explain what you mean by “jihad envy?” Are you saying that I’m envious of those who have jihads against them? Because I’m not. Jihads are bad. I thought my point was pretty obvious. Muslims tend to go fairly insane over any criticism of them and get very violent, so I merely pointed out that bad things might happen if Gervais did a similar cover mocking them.
““I also look forward to his next cover where he mocks Islam.”
He has.””
Please provide a link to the magazine cover where he mocked Islam in a similar way.
Read this: http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2010/10/04/jesus-art-exibit-creates-outrage/
Did you know the guy who proposed it had to go into hiding? Remember south park had to cancel a show due to threats? No?
Spare me.
And some Christians killed abortion doctors.
So what?
You don’t get plus points because some other religions’ extremists are less subtle than your religions’ extremists.
Here’s the thing. Anyone claiming the name of Christ and yet murders someone is not following the teachings of Christ or the Bible. Anyone claiming to be a Muslim and yet murders someone IS following the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an. That’s a BIG difference.
“Here’s the thing. Anyone claiming the name of Christ and yet murders someone is not following the teachings of Christ”
Excuse me, I was busy reading the bit of the Bible where God says not to suffer a witch to live, and then drowns everyone on the planet.
“Will you please explain what you mean by “jihad envy?” ”
You seemed to be wistful, wishing that if only your religion was still as extreme would Gervais stop making fun of it.
Oh yeah, from the OT theocracy of ancient Israel. I almost thought you would cite something from Christianity. You know from the New Covenant.
What a joke. You’re saying christians kill abortionists because the abortionist insulted Jesus or christianity?
““Will you please explain what you mean by “jihad envy?” ”
You seemed to be wistful, wishing that if only your religion was still as extreme would Gervais stop making fun of it.”
That makes no sense. If you and Gervais want to mock Christianity, go ahead (though you won’t be doing it at my blog, of course). I mean, it is in your job description as Romans 1 poster children.
But you should at least think through your insults a little more carefully. When I point out that Gervais is more “brave” at mocking the religion least likely to harm him and least likely to offend non-Christians (as John rightfully pointed out, if Gervais insulted other faiths then even the non-Christians would oppose him) I’m not wishing my religion was more extreme so he would stop making fun of it. And even if I was, the term “jihad envy” wouldn’t describe that.
I’m just pointing out that he is deliberately trying to offend and if he really wanted to impress me he’d mock Islam in the same manner.
Notascientist:
“Excuse me, I was busy reading the bit of the Bible where God says not to suffer a witch to live, and then drowns everyone on the planet.”
That passage was for Israel and only Israel, and it was part of cleansing their nation of all that was against God. Christians do not, and never did, have that mandate.
God did not drown everyone, and it was BEFORE the previous passage, not “then.” He save a few to restart the civilization because it had gotten so corrupt. He is the Creator and can start over if He wants to. I’d suggest you read Ps. 50:16-20 before you start pulling passages out of context again.
Oh, and real Christianity was NEVER “extreme” – never at all similar to Islam. just shows what you DON’T know. You obviously are not a theologian or a historian either, let alone not being a scientist.
Christians who point out that Islam isn’t mocked and parodied in the same way really are complaining that they don’t get to riot and kill people over the offense.
Christians should take it as a credit to themselves as viewed as civilized people who respect freedom of speech and expression that they are mocked.
“Christians who point out that Islam isn’t mocked and parodied in the same way really are complaining that they don’t get to riot and kill people over the offense.”
That has to be one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. All we are doing is pointing out how everyone is afraid of Islam because of how Islam reacts. Yet everyone treats Christians like crap because they know we are tolerant. The Left preaches tolerance unless it’s Islam, and then they can do anything. Christians are always getting screwed by the Left while Islam gets special accommodations. Al we want is fair treatment and tolerance. And meanwhile we just point out the irony.
That’s silly. We are pointing out the cowardice of Atheists who claim to be intellectually surperior to stupid idiots who arent smart enough to know God does not exist. But that smug insulting nature of comedians such as Gervais will only publicly attact Christians because they know they are the safest most acceptable target.
Like I said, if you pull that nonsense with Muslims you’ll be labeled an Islamophobe bigot from the public. And your life and or well being threatened by the Muslims.
If you pull that nonsense with the Jews, youre an anti-semitic Nazi-like bigot.
But Christians, they’re easy. You actually get praise for insulting them and mocking their religious symbology. You’re clever, and it’s publicly acceptable, even encouraged.
It’s cowardice. Cowardice because you know what’ll happen if you venture too far off the Christian bashing into other religions.
Oh John, come down off the cross, Christians aren’t a persecuted minority, they’ve been feeding other people to the lions for centuries.
And, athiests are people without theism, full stop, no replacement. Some may go so far to say that there’s no god, but that’s farther than atheism is, which is to be simply without. You are adding conditions to what atheism is for your own purpose.
You are an atheist to all religions that you reject and I am an atheist to one more than you.
So we agree on almost every religion except the version of the one you hold dear to your heart.
My reasons for rejecting all the ones you reject are the same reasons that you rejected them – they aren’t compelling or credible.
The mechanism that’s at work for people to not mock those that we can reasonable predict will respond with violence is not fear, but rather, safety and concern for life.
We in the west are not the ones who bear the burden and cost of Islamic riots – people over there pay the cost of our mockery. We do not wish to cause needless suffering, loss of life and damage to infrastructure.
Moreover, atheism is rejecting theism and as such, has no need for martyrs when atheism is based in reason and logic.
Christians NEVER feed people to the lions. Do you even read a history book? Or do you just spout off stuff you find on the atheist web sites?
Atheism, by definition, is “no god” – i.e., a belief that there is no god. However, every atheist has himself as his own god. The rest of your comment is so full of liberal white-washing it’s difficult to know where to start countering it so I’m not going to bother throwing pearls before swine.
“everyone on earth is an atheists of some magnitude – and the same reason that you don’t consider Odin, Zeus and other gods
are the same reason why atheists go a step further and exclude yours along with you and the ones that you exclude for consideration”
That’s like a bachelor saying to a married man, “We’re practically the same. There are 3,499,999,999 women you haven’t married. I just married one less.” I find statements like yours to be less than informative.
“Christians who point out that Islam isn’t mocked and parodied in the same way really are complaining that they don’t get to riot and kill people over the offense.”
I didn’t realize you were a mind reader. So you have a different definition of “jihad envy,” where what we really envy is that Islam “gets” to do jihads and we don’t? You and NotAScientist should get together and agree on a definition.
A more accurate take would be that we are poking fun at people like Gervais for going after the safest possible target. He is pretending to be bold and in-your-face but he’s really being childish.
@ Neil
Just because Christians don’t respond with outright violence, doesn’t mean that there is no social and financial cost to mocking Christian religions.
Christian groups often do boycott campaigns and vote in blocks in elections.
As for extrapolating atheism to the bachelor – you don’t actually make a point, you just demonstrated understanding of the principle of what I said – and there is only that difference between a married man and a bachelor – so labeling something as if it is that something, without explanation, doesn’t make it that something so labelled.
John,I do appreciate your willingness to take this in your stride. Unfortunately, most people, theists or atheists, do not have such a vision. In India we had almost violent protests when a muslim artist exhibited paintings of hindu goddesses in the nude. There too, the argument was that neither the artist in question (M F Hussain) nor any of the others would dare paint a similar painting of Muhammad or even defend it on the grounds of artistic freedom of expression.
Fundamentalist Islam has shown itself to be the most intolerant of all faiths and belief systems I know of, but I still don’t see that as any reason for sane humans to follow their example. I agree there are lines to be drawn but where to draw them is a question of immense import and requires a very fine balance.
I am an atheist, but to me Gervais photo shows poor judgement and bad taste. He does not represent the kind of atheist I see myself as. At the moment western society is in a situation where the christian leadership can not kill or even torture him for it, and that is propably what he is parading for. This has not been the case for most of the history of christianity. During most of its history this kind of act would have been a suicide. A person involved in mocking the values of christianity or just suspected of such would have been brutally tortured and tormented until put to a painfull death. And those christians who acted in such a way found profound theological argumentation from the Bible to justify their acts. Many christians even today believe Mr. Gervais will suffer eternally in the afterlife for his mischief. And they also feel it is somehow just and right fate for him…
Atheism is not a social movement or a belief system. It is not even an ideology. Therefore one atheist is not responsible for the actions of a nother. In addition there is no god/gods behind atheism that could be accounted responsible for the actions of their followers.
As for islam, it is dominant in countries that are exploited by the western countries and companies. Many culturally leading islamic countries are ruled by western puppets. That is why there is so much fanaticism in those societes. To many islam presents itself as the cultural movement against western hegemony and exploitation. As with all religions it is also used to numb the people into accepting the current state of affairs and rule the masses. In time this will propably change. For hundreds of years christian church had enormous political power in the western countries, and intolerance and ignorance were paramount in those countries,while islamic countries in comparrison were tolerant and civilized. The tables have turned and religious fanatics have started to lead people in many of those countries.
Within christian culture there once was a violent iconoclasm about wether or not the images of god, or even men (as they are the image of god) should be represented at all. This happened at the same time as when islam was born and that influenced islam greatly. They adopted this idea from the orthodox christians of the Near-East and as a result a picture of the prophet Muhammed is much more disturbing to them than a Jesus pose is to the christians in general. In a way that goes to show how much further in monotheism islam has gone in comparrison to christianity. The reason why prophet Mohammed and especially his face is never depicted is that as he was just a man, he should not be worshipped or deitified like Jesus has been treated by the Christians.
When Jim Morrison did the Jesus pose, it was a statement and art, but it was also very effective advertizing. When Ricky Gervais did it, it was an act of copying, and to me it seems it was only done in effort to advertize. Anyway tasteless…
Rautakyy,
I agree it is in poor taste and bad judgement. But poor taste and bad judgement are thing we have to deal with. Many atheists believe open air evangelism is in poor taste and bad judgement, but it’s a Christian’s right to do so even if it offends an Atheist. Same here, Gervais can express his views regardless of the offense.
However I wholly disagree that atheism is not a movement or belief system. But even so, that doesn’t make every Atheist responsible for the one, nor must other Atheists apologize on his behalf. He is responsible for his own actions, just like I am responsible for mine.
rautakyy,
You claim that for the most of the history of Christianity people who mocked it would have been killed with the Bible supposedly giving justification. That is nothing but revisionist history. While perhaps leaders of the Roman Catholic Church participated in such unbiblical practices, twisting Scripture to support their heresy, the average Christian would never consider such a thing – which is why any Christians disagreeing with the Romanist church also were put to death. It wasn’t Christians who did these things – it was people who were part of a tyrannical institution under the leadership of a false teacher – the pope. Don’t blame Christians for what a false religious system claiming to be Christian did – as noted, that system also persecuted Christians.
All Christians do indeed believe Mr. Gervals will suffer eternally in the afterlife – IF he refuses to accept that Christ died for his sins – i.e., become a Christian. And it isn’t because of his “mischief,” it is because he, like all of us, is a sinner in need of salvation.
Actually, atheism is indeed a belief system. You have an entire worldview built around your atheism, and there are many, many atheist groups operating as a unit to undermine the Christian faith and take away their rights to operate in the public sphere as Christians.
Your liberal whine about Islam being under western control and the countries being exploited by the West is more revisionist nonsense. What is the excuse for Islam’s 8th,9th, 10th, centuries’ conquering of all the mid-east, northern Africa, all the way into India, into eastern Europe, and even into Western Europe before they were stopped? Their faith has always been a violent faith determined to make the entire world Islam.
Again, your claim about the “Christian church” and what it did in Europe is about Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. More revisionist history claiming countries with Islam were tolerant; they have ALWAYS persecuted Jews and Christians and convert at the edge of the sword. How tolerant is that? Convert or die. Islam copied nothing from the Christian church – liberals revise history so as to make Christianity evil and Islam just a victim, when in reality it has always been the other way around.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
how is people are afraid of Islam because of the violent response and Christians will tolerate mockery because they don’t respond violently,
any different from saying that Christians are jealous of the fear Islam is inspiring because Christians know they can’t get away with a violent response?
Christians are entirely free to behave violently, they are just unwilling to do so for fear of legal consequences – so they turn their response to censorship and shoe horning their religion into the secular law.
Christians live in the secular world which will not tolerate religious violent protest – while Islamics tend to live in theocratic countries where such public expression of their intolerance is acceptable, even mandatory.
So, it comes down to Christians wanting to be able to live in a Christian theocratic society were they are not mocked or they are at least able to respond to the mocking with violence.
Your premise is false. Christians do not want to act violently because that is against God and Christ. We are NOT jealous of Islam. The issue is one of fairness – why is it okay to mock one religion and not the other?
Islam is violent in EVERY country, regardless of whether or not that country tolerates it. Remember 9/11? How about Ft. Hood?
Normal Christians DO NOT want a theocratic society – those who do are aberrant and even heretical in their theology because that is NOT what Scripture teaches.
Islam, on the other hand, is violent because that IS what their book teaches
“You are an atheist to all religions that you reject and I am an atheist to one more than you. So we agree on almost every religion except the version of the one you hold dear to your heart.”
Wow, the same bad argument twice in one thread! I used the bachelor / married man illustration last time, so I’ll pick a new one: Your statement is as logical as you telling the guy on death row that you are practically the same. You just murdered one less person.
again, you are repeating my point and saying it’s bad, but you are not saying why it’s allegedly bad.
labelling it as such does not make it so
there is no difference between a person on death row and a person not incarcerated, other than the one on death row was convicted of capitol offenses.
we can’t even know that the non-jailed person hasn’t killed people
Please explain the “People do not have the right to not be offended” comment because I honestly do not understand the intent of the comment.
I have not read all of the many replies above so if we have gone here already I apologize.
I think the reason Christians take the bulk of the heat from the Atheist crowd is because Christians make up the largest religious segment of the US population by far. Larger the target, the more heat.
Jews take a disproportionate amount of heat. They total only about 7 million people in the country and are one of the smallest religious group in the US yet they take the heat from all sorts for all sorts of silliness. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the USA. Islamic groups take plenty of heat and Muslims are regularly attacked verbally and physically by Neanderthals that believe that all Muslims are terrorists.
The idea that Islam is not mocked is simply silly. Have you not heard about the death threats against David Letterman because of his jokes at Islams expense?
While certainly I think Ricky Gervais has the intent to tweak the nose of the religious, he is also making a statement about the attacks on the atheists. It is the true third rail of American life. An atheist would find it extremely difficult to get elected in most of this country. A teacher that admits to being an Atheist is going to catch heat from parents in most public schools and forget about it in private schools.
Many atheists are closeted because they work for Christians or other people identifying themselves as religious and being out as an atheist has replaced being out as a gay as the taboo in American society.
For one, I do not agree with the decission to do that magazine cover but I will defend to the death his right to do it.
People do not have the right to not be offended means you have the right to speak your mind, and I do not have the right to compel you or cause you to be compelled to silence.
For example, atheists and the nonreligious do not have the right to silence religious expression just because they don’t like it or it offends them. They should not look to an authority to silence it either.
Likewise christians do not have the right to silence people like Gervais or the magazine because it may offend our sensibilities, or we deem it blasphemous.
Basically, so what if you’re offended, I can say what I want
I got ya. As tired as I am it just wouldn’t click in my addled mind.
Thank you.
To be clear, religious and religions do not offend me, they baffle me.
People do not have a right to not be offended because that means no one could say or write or paint or make anything, since everything is offensive to someone, somewhere
there is no legal recognition of prudery
Well said.
If all religious and irreligious could learn how not to be offended, the world would be a better place.
Your message was a good trans-religious message.
John Barron Jr, I agree with you. People should have the right to represent their opinions even if other people find them offending or questionable. But just as this is the ideal, at the same time the world is not ideal. People are persecuted because of their opinions all around the world. In western countries we have had the freedom of speech as an ideal as a result of the age of enlightenment, even though it does not work here always either. Or what do you think of the Mc Carthy witch-hunt? I think neither of us would enjoy it, if nazis would openly start to campaing their racistic ideals to gain political power. Enlightenment was the historical turning point after the dark ages and after the age of reformation. At the same time it was the age when the western countries subjugated rest of the world.
Glenn E. Chatfield, calling the historical facts I have presented “revisionist” does not change them from facts to fiction. I am not a liberal. I am a socialist. I am also sorry, for I am going to burst your bubble. Roman catholics represent christianity. They are by far the largest christian sect in the world even today. Second largest is the orthodox church. Neither of these two have been known to be “liberal” about how to treat people who oppose christianity and they were the only representatives of christianity for over a 1000 years. That was because they had the habit of destroying any people who opposed their world view. They would act like that today if they could. The protestant churches have equally bleak history, as their fanaticism lead to religious war in Europe and they were very keen on burning withces and such. If there is a christian church that has no history of persecution, it is due to the fact it is so young that the secular legal state has prevented it from doing so.
There is nothing that can excuse the original rapid spread of islam, nor is there nothing that can excuse the rapid spread of christianity. Both were violently spread and the threat was turn or die. There equally is nothing that can excuse western corporations exploiting countries in the third world.
I repeat: Atheism is not a belief system. It is the state of lack of a belief system. It is a world view, no doubt, but it is not a belief system.
It is a comforting thought that most christians would not have taken part in the persecution of people with different opinions, but that does not seem to be so, when you look at history. It is full of public displays of violence, where the population has agreed with the religious leadership to inflict pain and kill “heretics”. I suppose this applies equally to christianity and islam. Within all ideologies, but especially in religions there is inclination to fanaticism, and fanatical people are easily led by any demagogues to the most horrid acts of violence. And why not? They have the gods on their side. Morals is not an issue, when the supreme authority on morals is ordering to destroy these other people. Or what do you think happened to the amorites, the hussites, the adamites, the gnostics, or the albigenses, for an example? If most christians would find it wrong to persecute people with different kind of world view, how is it they are ready to accept it as morally justified that the people with different world view are going to suffer for an eternity because of it? There is a contradiction, you know…
Your historical “facts” relate to Roman Catholicism and not true Christianity. Even then, only those in leadership positions participated in the actions which you charge to the who Christian faith. Those who participated in the Crusades were mostly not Christian but mercenaries paid by the Roman church. Your lack of understanding about the Christian faith is why you parrot the Romanist claim to be the Church. They might “represent” Christianity to the unknowledgeable, but they are a corruption of the Christian faith. The Christian faith was not represented by Romanism or Orthodoxy for the first 300 years. All actions by Christians – including Protestants – which used violence were totally against Christian teachings. And that is the point. Islam IS following the teachings of their founder when the perpetrate violence.
I repeat, Christians didn’t persecute other Christians for not believing – it was man-made organizations run by apostates and heretics who persecuted other believers, and that was the minority of total Christians.
You claim atheism is not a belief system but a world view IS a belief system. Atheism is a belief system devoid of God.
Catholicism only represents Christianity culturally, not theologically. As religion goes, Christianity and Catholicism are different, even though people generally correlate the two.
“There is nothing that can excuse the original rapid spread of islam, nor is there nothing that can excuse the rapid spread of christianity. Both were violently spread and the threat was turn or die. There equally is nothing that can excuse western corporations exploiting countries in the third world.”
Right on Islam, wrong on Christianity. It spread rapidly, even in the first century, and was under wide persecution for its first three centuries. That’s a very, very long time.
You also have a problem reconciling your worldview with nearly everything you write: You keep saying “nothing can excuse ____,” but of course under atheism no one needs an excuse. Just molecules in motion, folks! Intellectual bankruptcy: You’re doin’ it right.
Here’s a “religion of peace” vs. Christianity scorecard that doesn’t include the latest Nigeria bombing — http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/08/24/u-s-ambassador-to-nigeria-ramadan-a-holy-month/ .
And of course, nothing can excuse the slaughter of 3,000+ innocent yet unwanted human beings per day (and that’s just the U.S.). We can thank atheists, secular humanists and fake Christians for that.
Glenn E. Chatfield and John Barron Jr, how could your assesment of christianity hold greater power, than that of the pope? He is the leader of the original and greatest christian sect and in his use there is an army of theologians who have centuries of research to back them up that they have the knowledge of how the Bible and christianity should be determined. Hence, catholical church does represent christianity in both theological and cultural terms. Who should I, or anyone else, believe on this matter and on what grounds? They have the authority to tell the world what christianity is and how it should be measured. Who gives you the right to call a nother christian a “heretic” or “true christian”? All religions are man made organisations and all of them serve men. Just men. Or can you prove me wrong? Even if there was something divine in the universe, there is certainly nothing divine about religions. None of them. Do you think catholics go to heaven?
The men who took part in the crusades were all christians. They were mostly illiterate men who were told that the Christ will grant them eternal life as a result of relieving them from all of their sins, if they go to kill the infidel and the “heretics”. They had every reason to believe that was the case and no chance to question this. Just as today soldiers of the western countries are told they protect their own nation and serve the cause of democracy if they go to occupy countries of the Middle-East to fight the native people there. All the while it is just about money and power, just as it was during the crusades.
Claiming that the atrocities done by people who called themselves christians and thougt themselves as christians, somehow removes the responsibility from christianity is silly. It is almost the same as claiming communism is not what Stalin or his followers did, but communism is a good ideology in which there are no death camps or political persecution. The only difference is that ethically the god of christians can be directly appointed responsible for the actions done by men in his name. Is it a moral entity that allows such atrocities be done in its name, if it holds all the power to stop them? Very bad publicity. Rather unplausible suggestion, that there even is such an entity.
Islam is a religion that has violence in its history, precence and roots. So is christianity and many others. They are just mirror images of each other. They often hold the message of peace also, but until we understand that peace is important regardless of which god or religion preaches it, there will be no peace. There will neither be peace as long as the mighty powers that be, exploit nations.
Neil, yes christians were persecuted in the Roman empire, but when they siezed power, they turnded the persecution to the non-christians and those christians who were “heretics”. If the romans burned christians alive and crucified them, so did the christians burn heretics and witches en masse, they tortured non-christians and forced nation after nation and tribes after tribes to turn into christianity by force, violence and murder, and all the time they were certain they were doing the right thing and did find moral justification from the Bible for their violence.
Who has told you that abandoning the absurd idea of god would require abandoning ethics? That makes no sense.
How do you know if someone is a “fake christian”? Do they not think themselves as true christians or are they just faking it all the way? How should I as an outsider recognize which actions are by “fake christians” and which are those of true christians?
What Ricky Gervais is demonstrating is perhaps just the intolerance of christianity. That he is able to do so, is not the result of christianity being a tolerant religion. It has never been such. That is not to say that all christians are fanatical maniacs. It is only the higher morals that the christians as individuals and as citizens of a secular state that allow him to do so. That morals is not derived from a god but from common sense, we also sometimes call ethics. There lies within all religions the danger of a demagogue telling hysterical masses who the “heretic”, infidel or pagan is and leading them in a religiously motivated fanatical frenzy to torture and kill those other people and “atheists, secular humanists and fake believers”. If christianity was such a tolerant religion, we would not even have this conversation, now would we?
I would like to think you all as christians who would not burn Ricky Gervais even, if you had the chance…
RAUTAKYY
No, the pope is NOT “the leader of the original and greatest christian sect” – the pope’s sect didn’t come around until Christianity had been in place for over 300 years. Our assessment is made based on what Scripture says, while the Romanist teachings are based on man’s traditions started long after the church. They had the power of the empire to force everyone to kowtow to them, which is how Rome got to be in charge. As I have said, you need to study church history and not take what Rome says as the truth. If you want to believe the lie of Rome and its’ professors, that’s your choice. If you read the Bible instead you’d see the errors of Rome and why they do NOT represent true Christianity.
Those Romanists who are true Christians in spite of Romanist teachings will indeed go to heaven.
Most of the crusaders were NOT Christians, they were Catholics or non-believing mercenaries. THAT is historical fact.
No it is not silly to exonerate Christianity from the behavior of those who call themselves Christians and yet fail to follow the teachings of Christianity. It’s as simple as demonstrating from Scripture that their behavior was not in accordance with the faith. There is no comparison to Stalin and Communism – What Stalin did WAS founded on communism.
Islam’s idea of peace is when the entire world is converted to Islam. Islam converts at the point of the sword. Christianity doesn’t.
Again, Christians didn’t persecute non-Christians – Roman Catholics did, and they also persecuted and executed real Christians for daring to stand firm in their faith.
People can twist the Scripture to find any justification for any behavior, but the Scripture itself is not to blame – it’s the people seeking justification who are to blame and the Bible never sanctions killing for the faith, never sanctions forcing conversion, etc. Those who participate in such actions have no right to call themselves Christians. Blaming Christianity for the behavior of non-believers who call themselves Christian but don’t follow Christian teachings is certainly wrong.
Your problem is that you don’t understand Christian theology and true Christian doctrines.
“Who has told you that abandoning the absurd idea of god would require abandoning ethics? That makes no sense.”
Glenn responded to your many historical errors, so I’ll just address the question above. You misunderstood what I said — again. First, you are begging the question of the idea of God being absurd. It is a perfectly logical possibility, and you tip your hand in your Romans 1 rebellion.
Beyond that, I’m not denying that something called “ethics” and “morality” exist. I’m just pointing out that you have zero logic to ground any universal morality and it is silly of you to make moral claims about Christianity or anything else. You, like all other atheists, rarely go three sentences without contradicting your own worldview. No matter what tortured rational you use, it all comes down to majority rules or whoever is in power makes the rules or society leans this way or that, but that is all moral relativism. You can’t give me one good reason why I should care what you think is moral or immoral. Just be consistent and go with the survival of the fittest mentality. Quit running on the fumes of Christianity and pretending you have anything in your worldview worth admiring, because no matter how many silly atheists say “I can be good without God,” they can’t support a universal definition of “good.” Oh, they try, but they always fail.
Glenn E. Chatfield, yes most of the crusaders were catholics, as are by far most people in this world today who think themselves as christians. However all the crusaders thought themselves as christians and no un-christened warriors did participate on crusades, or can you point me to a source that shows any? Even the turcopoles, sons of crusaders with the local palestinian women, were christened. Many of the crusaders were common men drawn to war by their lords who decided to join the crusades, so I gues you could call them mercenaries just as you could call a US marine a mercenary, for they did recieve pay for their service. Further more, the crusaders thought themselves as good christians, for all the atrocities they took part in, were what they were told a way to salvation. They thought they defended christianity, did they not? How could they have known better. Most of them were illiterate. There were no other options to be a christian for well over a thousand years, other than being a catholic, Roman or Greek. Were all those people “heretics” when they believed in their religious leadership? What if you have been deluded into a “heretical” “fake christianity”? How can you be so sure? Maybe the true christian sect has not even been born yet. Maybe it emerges only hundreds of years later to your date as you would claim happened to the crusaders.
Is ending up in Hell the fate of the crusaders and if so, is that fair? Is that moral? Only by ethical process could they have understood what they did was wrong and no doubt some did, but that was against their religion. Against all christianity of that day stood for. Their religious leadership told them what was right and wrong and among good and right things they were told was killing heathans. That is how religious morals allways works, if it is allowed by the political leadership.
If you can interprete the scriptures, that is a privilege most of the crusaders, or for that matter most of the people in the world even today never had. If the way to salvation is through scripture, it is a salvation reserved only for the pharisees. That does not sound very just nor very plausible.
I know some church history and some medieval history, but you seem not to know anything about communism. I suggest you get better knowledge of it. It will do you good. Remember, without forced and violent turning by death threat christianity would be just a nother small end-of-the-world cult. Rather overdue end of the world according to its founding profecy.
Catholic churches both roman and greek were direct followers of the early church and no other followers existed for well over a thousand years (they took care of that). Hence, they are the original, oldest and by far the largest representatives of christianity on the planet. If there are other bigger sects or have been other older sects on other planets we do not know, now do we? Do you think most of the people who think themselves as christians are ending up in heaven? Most of them follow the teachings of Catholic churches, did you not know?
Neil, how can you claim morality is based on christianity? Do you mean to say the japanese, the chinese, the vietnamese, the pakistani, the indians or the indonesians just to name few have no morals? Morals is not based on what one god teaches. How coudl it be? How could all the moral people serving so many gods or none at all hold morals, if it was the property of just one religion? It is not morals, if you choose not to do the wrong thing out of fear of punishment, or choose the right thing out of hope for reward. A little kid or a psychopat acts thus. A normal adult (wether atheist, hindu, buddhist, muslim, christian or what have you) has understanding of right and wrong according to the results of his/her actions not only to him/her self but to others and their surroundings. That is how morals is defined, not according to any old book. How have I contradicted myself?
You blame islam for terror, and yes, some islamic religious fanatics have engaged in terrorist acts. Maybe they would have used bombers like the US if they had them, but how lucky we are no religious fanatics hold any of those truly terrible weapons. Do they? A religious fanatic in the role of the president of the US could do such damage to the infidels. However was it not the christians who were first to use the atom bomb? Or were those catholics also? Are the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on their way to Heaven or Hell? If the latter because most of them never even heard of christianity, is that an act of a moral diety? Answer this. Was it not the christians who invented carpet bombing? Is it the fate of all the children in Germany, Korea, Laos and Vietnam to have been bombed to death to end up in Hell for the sake of not being of the right sect of christianity or never having heard of it at all? Or was that also done by “heretics”? Was it not the christians who invented to use poison gass as a weapon? Is it the fate of all the french catholic soldiers who died from poison gass while they defended their country in the WWI to end up in Hell, just because they believed how to worship the god in a “heretical” way, from their local catholic priest? Or is that the responsibility of some “fake christians”? Was it not christians who decided to use napalm, white phosphor or agent orange as weapons? Were those not christians who brought dum-dum bullets into battle and was it not a christian who killed all those kids in Oslo just few weeks ago? At least he thought so. Why did the christian god not tell him before, this is not his will? I bet the madman would have believed it, if your god had told him not to blow the bomb or shoot those little kids. Why did your god not interfere? I mean your god seems to bother with a lot less meaningfull “miracles”.
As this conversation continues, it is more and more easy for me to understand why Mr Gervais did his pose on the cover of the Humanist magazine.
RAUTAKYY
You still don’t get it. Just because these people called themselves Christian, that doesn’t mean they were. They might have been good Catholics, but the majority of Catholics throughout history really didn’t know the Christian faith – they only knew Romanism. You can’t blame the Christian faith for the behavior of heretics and unbelievers who are following orders from a hierarchy of heretics who corrupted the Christian faith.
I was deluded into a false belief system claiming to be Christian – Mormonism. But things just didn’t always add up so I eventually read the Bible for myself and learned they were a cult. I am now a REAL Christian. Everyone has the opportunity to seek the truth.
If anyone – not just Crusaders – are not true Christians, then, yes, they will end up in hell. Is it fair and moral? YES. God has planted knowledge of Himself in every human, and whether people seek Him with that knowledge is up to them. What is fair is equal treatment of all unbelievers. What is moral are all of God’s judgments. As for whether they knew what they were doing was wrong, Scripture also says that God has planted the moral law in the hearts of everyone, so people know intrinsically that murder, rape, etc is wrong regardless of what the leadership says. That’s why the Nazis couldn’t claim they only followed orders.
The way of salvation isn’t through Scripture – it is by the Word of God no matter how it gets to the individual.
As for Communism, I am quite familiar with it. It is an atheistic system with a Darwinist worldview, which is why everywhere it has been practiced it has brought about mass murders, corruption of every sort, terrorism of the citizenry, etc. There is NOTHING good about Communism.
Romanist and Eastern churches were corruptions of the early church, and not all Christians were part of them, which is why as they grew in power they hunted down and executed whoever did not belong to their organizations. You buy into their propaganda when you say they are the oldest representation of Christianity. They claim direct lineage, but really they corrupted the lineage and no longer represent the true faith. There was always – always has been – Christians outside the Romanist and Eastern Churches. They just had to stay mostly in hiding until the era of the Reformation.
Do I think that most people who consider themselves Christians will end up in heaven? NO. A large percentage of these people are members of cults like the LDS or JW, and a large percentage of Romanists also are not Christian (as testimony after testimony of ex-Catholics will confirm). Then there are many “secular” Christians who assume they are Christians because they are part of a Christian family, and yet never accepted the faith for themselves. There are large denominations (PCUSA, UCC, UMC, ELCA, et al) who have redefined Christ and God so as to give themselves freedom of license, and as long as they follow a false Christ they will not be saved.
I blame Islam for terror because that IS THE TEACHING of true Islam. So-called “fanatics” of Islam are the ones practicing their faith.
There is nothing wrong with Christians being part of the military and participating in a just war. Dropping the A-Bomb was part of a just war and saved millions of lives of Americans. As for who invented carpet bombing, who knows if they were Christian? Just because people are American, that doesn’t make them Christian. And, no, it wasn’t Christians who did the murder in Oslo. you want to blame Christianity for every evil of the world, and yet it was atheistic communists who have murdered more people in the 20th century than were murdered by any government in over 1000 years. Millions and millions were murdered under the godless reigns of Hitler (atheism), Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc, etc, etc.
Again, Christians and the Christian faith NEVER advocates violence. Islam and atheistic regimes always advocate violence.
“Neil, how can you claim morality is based on christianity?”
I didn’t. It is based on the one true God, which happens to be the God of Christianity.
I encourage you to study more seriously the religion you seek to discredit. As it is, you keep making serious errors about history and Christianity and more.
Read the book of Romans. It explains how all people have an awareness of God but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (that would be you). It also explains how everyone has moral laws written on their heart. That explains why people of all religions or no religion have an awareness of morality, as much as they try to suppress it and either deny God or make up their own god. The good news is that the rest of the book has the solution to our problem.
The point you keep (deliberately?) ignoring is the inconsistency of your claims with your worldview. If the universe came from nothing, and life came from non-life and evolved to all we see today, there is nothing to justify anything resembling universal morality or ethics. You can’t give me one reason to care about your endless moral claims. It is illogical of you to do so.
Have you seen the short (7 min.) movie called Cruel Logic? If not, I encourage you to — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/not-so-skeptical-skeptics/ .
Glenn E. Chatfield, so you are a koptian christian today, are you? Because that is the only sect other than the roman or greek catholics that survived during their domination, that did lasted for far over thousand years. Or was there a nother? Just because some other religion is more coherent than the mormons, does not make it true either. The mormonism is one of the most funniest and unhistorical religions ever. What it tells of the society it was born in, or religions in general is a nother matter…
Using the A-bomb against helpless civillians was an act of terror, and can not be excused in any way. It may have saved american soldiers, but at the cost of Japanese childrens lifes, born both before and after the war. It is ultimate tribal morals to value the life of a soldier over the life of any children. But it goes to show how morals is a subject of human behaviour and socio-cultural evolution. It is also ultimate tribal morals to think it is OK, that most people will suffer needlesly for an eternity as long as me and my religious group gets to be saved. Same as for the A-bomb goes for agent orange, exept that the children were and are vietnamese. Do these children end up in Hell or Heaven according to your christianity? Carpet bombing was invented by the british. I have no idea if you would choose to call those people christian, but they thought so about themselves and I would rather respect their own opinion about the fact. You have the right not to call the murderer in Oslo a christian, but that is what he himself calls himself and further more he found greatest inspiration for his actions from christianity. One of his prime motivators was the fear and hate of islam.
What Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did has nothing to do with communism. They corrupted it, but there is nothing in the original teachings, ideology or ideals of communism that would excuse death camps or such. You see, communism can easily be defended by the same arguments you use to defend christianity. There is no god, it is just men who act either morally or not. God does not participate anywhere. Does it?
What is your morals, and how is your concience, if you are ready to accept as moral entity a god that would let most ordinary people end up in eternal pain, even though it would have all the power to save them also? To me such an ideal is vile and selfrighteous. Such a god does not deserve our praise or love, and is quite unplausible also.
Neil, how strange it is that you would require a moral and personal entity to give beginning and morals to the universe, when most things in the universe happen without a particular purpose. An astroid hits the atmosphere and burns away in a bright light, and alltough there are reasons as to why this happens it serves no particular purpose. the light is there wether there is anyone to see it and to make whish upon a star or not. It just happens. A sun dies out and flashes in a supernova with the strength of billions of A-bombs. It consumes dozens of worlds that we know nothing about. Maybe even cultures higher than our own. Maybe life far more richer than that on our planet. It just happens, without a purpose, but not without a reason. The fuel of the sun has run out so it has to turn into a nova. Molecules in motion, as you say. To me it is obvious that the human being is just a little piece in a very long chain of events on this one small planet in the vast universe. Coincedences rule the amount of events. Do they not?
Morals is part of human behaviour and in a way it is defined by our genetics. But of course as our genetics give the boundaries to our morals, they do not predestine us to act in a particular way. As this seems a bit complicated to you, I try to make it short and clear. So, Our genetics leave a quite open arena for us to choose our morals and behaviour. Hence, it is ideals, like ethics or religion that affect what kind of actions we participate in. We are molded by our genes, the surrounding envarioment and society, and the values of our parents and heroes. You see it is simple like that. No universal morals exists, or does universal morals exist between the plancton and the whale? Between the panther and the gazelle? Or between the virus and the child? Morals is human behaviour, and it is not ordered by religious or political leadership, but derives from ethical process. Amd yes only through evolution have we achieved a state of conciousness whence we can evaluate things in an ethical way. Simple.
I will take your advice and study more of christianity, but also other religions and ideologies, and I suggest you do the same. History is also something you guys would benefit greatly from getting more aquinted with. Start with the crusades if it is an interresting subject, but do not limit yourself in the history of your particular superstition. It would give you wider perspective. If there is an entity we could call a god, it would be rather much a synonymus for nature. For nature has existed as long as there has been time, and it created itself. It can not be understood by humans other than by the study of nature, the natural sciences, the laws of physics and of course we may study human behaviour also, because we are a part of the nature. The answers how to understand ourselves are not limited to some particular ancient tomes, but to all of them, and all the cultural heritage of humanity.
After looking at your linked film, I am happy that the fear of god prevents you from committing murder, if there is nothing else to stop you from it. Or was that the message of the film to you? Do you see yourself as the torturer or the tortured when you watch it? Thousands and thousands of people who feared god equally and thought themselves as part of christianity, have not held themselves back and have tortured and murdered other people often enough to satisfy your god. Even in the bible genosides are done to please him, right? Your god is pleased with pain, as it allows such a place as Hell to exist as a fate for the most of the humanity as a result for living their ordinary boring lives. Right? How lucky you are not to have been born in a country where christianity (the true kind) is not even known. That is by far the most of the world.
In my world it is not important wether people live according to the teachigs of christianity, islam, platon, marxism, buddhism, or what ever, as long as they choose their actions and inaction as a result of an ethical process. And you know what? Most people in the world do, even if they have never even heard of ethics. Even, if they think it is morals derived from gods. I think or rather hope this is what Paul is referring to also. His life was not a perfect example of ethical choises.
rautakyy
You still don’t get it. There didn’t have to be sects of Christianity to be still around. Individual Christian groups outside all sects have always existed since the first century. Those original and real Christians never ceased to exist and kept the faith pure through the centuries.
There is such a thing as objective truth. Christianity meets all objective religious truths and no other religion does. Mormonism pretends to be a Christian sect but it has nothing in common with the true doctrines of Christianity.
The A-bomb and other instruments of war which you decry are the reason you can spout off the garbage you spout off as a free citizen. Do you think those women and children in Japan who died were more valuable than the millions more who would have died?
WWII, nor any war Christians are participating in, have anything to do with protecting one religion over another. You have some of the most revisionist ideas I have ever read.
Who cares who invented a particular way of fighting a war? Is carpet-bombing any more heinous than Hitlers’ blitzkrieg? Sherman said, “War is hell” for a reason. But these people who invent ways of fighting wars don’t do it because they are “Christian” but because they are looking for ways to defend their nations and their citizens no matter what their faith.
The murdering in Oslo was no more Christian than Adolf Hitler. People can call themselves anything they want, but if they don’t meet the definition of what they claim, then they are not what they claim. A dandelion can call itself a rose, but that doesn’t make it one. None of his actions were found in the Christian faith.
What Stalin, et al did had everything to do with communism and its atheistic, Darwinist worldview. Communism is a corrupt political system and was designed as such by a an atheist supporter of Darwin’s teachings.
The God I follow gives everyone the choice to follow him. The penalty for not doing so is eternal damnation. God doesn’t send anyone to eternal damnation – they choose it for themselves by rejecting him.
Our morals are based on Truth while your worldview’s morals are based on subjectivism, and relativism where nothing is consistent; it’s all based on personal opinion.
I think we might be getting a bit off track here.
@ Glen
I take it that you are a bible literalist? my lion comment was symbolic, to mean that Christians are the dominant who discriminate against others to the point of slaughter since Christians were last being literally fed to the lions
so, I think the question is, have you read any history books and if so, you aren’t demonstrating a strong understanding of the material
I take the Bible as it was written: i.e., literal when is meant to be literal, and figurative when it wi meant to be figurative. It is the historical-grammatical way of interpreting.
Again, Christians (not Catholics) have never discriminated against others as a unit. Individuals may, but not the church as a whole.
I’m very familiar with history – it’s one of my favorite subjects. It is you who don’t have a strong understanding of the material. There is no such thing as an unbiased historian and all proclaim Romanism as the Christian church, because they don’t understand the Church or Romanism.
R,
It is interesting how you misinterpreted the video to repeat your straw man that only a belief in God keeps me from murdering. Of course, the point was that those with your worldview have zero logical arguments at to why the relativist shouldn’t be tortured. I have lots of arguments as to why it is wrong. And oddly enough, you concede that it is wrong by implying that it would be bad if I did it. But you can’t explain why. I’d look for a new worldview.
Cheers!
I think relativists (and the atheist worldview) equivocate “should not be tortured” with “prefer not to be tortured”. And this is because of a vote, so to speak. That because everyone prefers to not be tortured, therefore, you should not torture. Bit that doesn’t actually follow.
I appreciate the atheists like the guy written about here — http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/08/without-god-moral-terms-are-meaningless.html . He and other atheist philosophers have the guts to take their worldview to its logical conclusion — that being one where terms like morals and ethics have no ultimate meaning.
Glenn E. Chatfield, how did the dropping of the two A-bombs save millions of lives? It saved thousands of american and japanese soldiers from a bitter fight of the home islands of Japan, as Japan capitulated as a result of the bombs. But there were options, like negotiating a peace between the US and Japan and not invading the home islands of Japan at all. We can not know what would have happened,if the US would have not pursued a total surrender from Japan. Instead we know what did happen. The most terrifying weapon was used against human civillians. The US could have demonstrated the destructive power of their new weapon on some remote uninhabited island in sight of japanese forces or even at sea in view of japanese coast, and told Japan this is what we are going to use against you if you do not capitulate, but instead they decided to use it on humans. A pure and vile act of terror. The fact that something evil is done in the course of war is no excuse as such. That was the point to be demonstrated in the Nürnberg trials, and it was, up to a degree.
Regardless of the teaching of a religion people are usually quite able to find loopholes and excuses to defend their own crimes from any religion. What are the true teachings of christianity and war? How many christian soldiers know them? In your opinion, was it an act of a true christian to drop the A-bomb or the agent orange? If so, your true christianity does not differ from any other violent sect of christianity. You see christianity alone does not make any person any better. One has to act ethically also.
It is unethical and immoral to worship a god that is willing to punish people for their everyday lives by an eternal pain. You say that your god gives everyone a choise to follow him, but that is not quite honest, is it? Do you really mean to say that almost all of the chinese, the indian, or the indonesian, just to name the three biggest nations on earth, deserve to go to Hell, because they do not serve your god? Most of these people have hardly even heard of your god, and even if they had, why would they give up their own cultural heritage just to follow some random doomsday cult?
Adolf Hitler was a christian and one of his political and propaganda agendas was defending christianity from atheism. The belt buckle of the german soldiers said: “Got mit unz” Now what god was that, if not the god of christianity? It worked for both catholic and protestant christians in the german army allready in WWI, and even against other christians. Handy, eh? The german army was defeated by a joint effort where christians put aside their differences with an atheistic government of the Soviet Union. It was an ethical choise, made on ethical grounds, but it was a necessary one also, from an ethical point of view.
You really do not know anything about communism, do you?
There are terrible crimes that have been done in the name of both christianity and communism. Both have advocates that say neither tells people to act thus originally, but both have had demagogues who have convinced masses that, that is exactly what is required of them to be good christians or communists. And allways when people act so it is a result of believing dogma over the ethical process. Both ethical and gullible behaviour are natural to humans on this level of evolution. But gullible following of an ideology or a religion does often lead to destruction and a bad result for the future of the speicies.
My homecountry Finland has over 80% of protestant lutherans as population. They go to church once a year, if some relative has christening-, funeral-, or marriagefeast. The feast and meeting relatives are the important things and going to church is just a custom. They barely know anything about christianity. Pretty much the same applies to most of our neighbouring countries in the Scandinavia and the Baltic. Do you think all these people are going to Hell? Of course there is a very small minority of these fanatic minor cult sects, but everyone thinks they are hypocritical bonkers anyway. During the WWII our lutheran priests would sanctify our weapons? Was that a true christian act? How much real christians there are in the world among the whole population of Earth? Where do they live?
How do you define a christian? Who has the right to call themselves christian? What are the doctrines that by following them, you become a christian? For centuries the catholic churches were the ones that defined what it is to be christian and people who fell out of that definition were indeed killed. So, no other kind of christianity survived anywhere exept in the muslim ruled lands. Besides, most people were illiterate, so they could possibly know what the scriptures say. They simply had to trust the priests. Do they really deserve eternal pain for that? Different people who read the scriptures come to very different conclusions. Do you really think a catholic theologist is less sincere in his belief than you? How could you know this? Is it not more propable, that he has simply become to a nother conclusion as a result of cultural heritage and indoctrination? Is it moral, or even fair of your god to make the “truth” so cryptic and too difficult to most people?
Neil, do not be silly. Of course there are arguments against torture and murder without christianity. The first argument is, that it is wrong because it causes harm to the victim. Second is that, if it is against the will of the victim, it is wrong. Simple and logical, is it not? That is the obvious ethical conclusion. What were you thinking?
Even if the god of christianity existed, it is not going to stop the hand of the murderer, is it? But if an allmighty god existed, it would be in responsibility for not stopping the hand of the murderer. With power allways comes the responsibility, right? With ultimate power the responsibility is equal. Can you excuse your god?
John Barron Jr, does Ricky Gervais explain his point about being offended more in the article? Ricky Gervais has never seemed to me as one of the great thinkers of our time, but that does not matter in questions divinal, because those are decisions we, all of us, are expected to make on our own, right? Or should we choose from among the agitators and demagogues? So, his reasons for choosing this or that should be good enough reasons for your god. Or does your god punish people for being stoopid, for coming from the wrong cultural sphere and such? At the moment it seems those are the measurements people who call themselves christian (I guess I’ll have to start to call you all that, because I have no way of knowing who is actually a “heretic” or just a “fake christian”) are giving for how the selection process goes as far as who gets to go to the eternal pain, or eternal bliss.
Rautakyy,
You want to believe in all that revisionist history, the liberal idea of how we could have won WWII without the bomb and how only some thousands would have been saved, etc. You want to believe every evil person in history was a Christian (Hitler!?!? You’ve got to be kidding me). You won’t accept the biblical definition of a Christian, rather you want to call people Christians if they claim to be one no matter how little they follow the Christian teachings or even understand the Bible. You want to believe any cult or heretic is a Christian. You want to believe Communism is a wonderful worldview which has been abused, and you want to believe Islam is no worse than any other faith system.
I am not going to be able to persuade you differently, because you have your own truth. I have better things to do with my time than debate these issues with someone whose mind is made up.
Pick this up on the discussion page, please.