Santa vs Jesus board game 'blasphemous'

[alibongo]

The question has been asked: is it hypocritical to mock Christianity but not Islam?

The answer is, no , it is common sense.

I am an atheist, I believe all religions to be similar in that they are man-made and untrue.

I would feel comfortable stating that publicly in the US and the UK but not in the ME.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just means I don't feel so strongly about the issue of religion vs. atheism that I am prepared to die for it.

[aquatus1]

9 hours ago, Horta said:

No, it wouldn't necessarily extrapolate any such thing. Why would it?

I already explained why it would.  If you wish to counter it, you would need to explain why my reasoning is faulty.  If you wish to claim that it is irrelevant, that is a different argument altogether, and not the one to which I was responding.

Quote

Why would that be relevant? No one is claiming he appeared anything other than a 1st century Jew from this region (if he existed). The point is that no one knows what the "saviour of humanity" looked like, nor did anyone claim to know (description).

Well, there is a sizeable contingent under the impression he had long hair, and was possible blond with blue eyes.

Quote

A point that is being overlooked here (IMO), is that these are supposedly personal accounts of people who spent much time with Jesus. They read like no such thing.

Why would that be relevant?  Why would your belief in what a personal account should read like matter when we are talking about accounts that were written down millenia ago?

Quote

The lack of physical description only being one indicator. There is nothing reliable to indicate they were written in the same century, let alone contemporary.

That's true, but it doesn't bear much of a relationship with the argument regarding personal accounts.  Out of all the personal observations made of me through my life, including careers, character references, and evaluations, I can't honestly recall a single time when my physical description ever came up, with the possible exception of my mother occasionally commenting on my hair.

When all is said and done, all we really know about Jesus is that, if he existed, he looked like a typical Jew of that time.  He wasn't famously ugly like Socrates.  He wasn't remarkably distinct as someone with Aryan features would be.  He wasn't someone that could be easily picked out of a crowd.  If he was a fictional character in a story, I would expect him to be better described, but since I am not overly familiar with how stories were written or told in that era, I am not going to claim this to be a definite.  Nor am I going to consider a lack of description particularly damning, for the reasons I already gave.

Now, how relevant any of this is to the actual OP is something I'm not completely understanding.

[Galactic Goatman]

9 hours ago, Horta said:

No, it wouldn't necessarily extrapolate any such thing. Why would it? Why would that be relevant? No one is claiming he appeared anything other than a 1st century Jew from this region (if he existed). The point is that no one knows what the "saviour of humanity" looked like, nor did anyone claim to know (description).

A point that is being overlooked here (IMO), is that these are supposedly personal accounts of people who spent much time with Jesus. They read like no such thing. The lack of physical description only being one indicator. There is nothing reliable to indicate they were written in the same century, let alone contemporary.

The name "Jesus" actually does not appear in any historical document from either before or during that time period. 

[Davros of Skaro]

18 hours ago, oldrover said:

I don't understand? 

I learned more about reality through BBC produced programs, than what I got through ABC, CBS, and NBC when growing up. Thank you PBS.

[Thorvir]

11 hours ago, Horta said:

Somewhat an irrelevance (strawman). The fact is, that there isn't. You can believe anything you like as to why that might be.

It's not a matter of what I believe.  It's a matter of you going on and on and on and on about Jesus not being real because there isn't any hard historical evidence of his existence.

11 hours ago, Horta said:

We have physical description of Socrates by someone who claimed to know him. What you envision is not important here.

And your bias isn't important either.  You're foolishly assuming that Jesus does not exist only because you don't want him to exist.

11 hours ago, Horta said:

There doesn't need to be. It does seem odd though (not to you). Obsessed? Why are you exaggerating?

No exaggeration at all.  You are obsessed with Jesus not existing at all.  As if that matters some how.  It's his message that's important to Christians, not his actual existence.  Stop fretting over it so much.

11 hours ago, Horta said:

Yes, my opinion that is supported by the (total lack of) quality historical evidence. Nothing wrong with Jesus being a real person. It's just that nothing really indicates that he was and an awful lot indicates myth.

"Total lack of quality historical evidence"....that only applies to bigfoot.  And what does "quality historical evidence" mean?  Only that which confirms your bias?

If you claim that there's nothing wrong with Jesus being a real person, then why are you so gleefully obsessed with him not being real?  You're contradicting yourself a bit.  Either he's real, and there's nothing wrong with that possibility, or he's not.

And as for your last part, there is quite a bit that indicates he was real......billions of Christians think that he was.

John the Baptist didn't baptize a figment of someone's imagination.  The Romans didn't crucify a figment of someone's imagination.

Don't obsess over this.  He was most likely a real person.  In addition, he most likely didn't have magical powers nor was anything other than just some dude stirring up a bit of trouble for the Romans.

[Thorvir]

11 hours ago, Horta said:

No, it wouldn't necessarily extrapolate any such thing. Why would it? Why would that be relevant? No one is claiming he appeared anything other than a 1st century Jew from this region (if he existed). The point is that no one knows what the "saviour of humanity" looked like, nor did anyone claim to know (description).

A point that is being overlooked here (IMO), is that these are supposedly personal accounts of people who spent much time with Jesus. They read like no such thing. The lack of physical description only being one indicator. There is nothing reliable to indicate they were written in the same century, let alone contemporary.

You're too hung up on looks.  It doesn't matter what he looked like.  Why is that so important to you?

[Horta]

3 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

I already explained why it would.  If you wish to counter it, you would need to explain why my reasoning is faulty.  If you wish to claim that it is irrelevant, that is a different argument altogether, and not the one to which I was responding.

Actually, I'm not obliged to do anything or submit to any rules you make up. They obviously didn't know what jesus looked like, so they got someone to give him up. If they had known, they wouldn't have needed this. This says nothing (outside of your imagination) as to what he might have actually looked like, or not. He might have been extremely ugly, tall, fat, or something else but at the risk of dragging the wrong ugly, tall, or fat  person off needed someone who knew. For all you, I, or anyone else knows. That is the point, no one knows (despite your claim to know).

Quote

Well, there is a sizeable contingent under the impression he had long hair, and was possible blond with blue eyes.

Good grief. 

Quote

Why would that be relevant?  Why would your belief in what a personal account should read like matter when we are talking about accounts that were written down millenia ago?

Because they are not personal accounts. 

Quote

That's true, but it doesn't bear much of a relationship with the argument regarding personal accounts.  Out of all the personal observations made of me through my life, including careers, character references, and evaluations, I can't honestly recall a single time when my physical description ever came up, with the possible exception of my mother occasionally commenting on my hair.

Where can I read the biographical portrayal of your life as written by your friends and disciples? Is it written as scripture, published in a biography somewhere?

Quote

When all is said and done, all we really know about Jesus is that, if he existed, he looked like a typical Jew of that time. 

Oh, so we "know" that do we lol? Could you back this up with a verbatim quote from someone who saw him? Thanks.

Quote

He wasn't famously ugly like Socrates. He wasn't remarkably distinct as someone with Aryan features would be.  He wasn't someone that could be easily picked out of a crowd. 

 

Again, source please.

Quote

If he was a fictional character in a story, I would expect him to be better described, but since I am not overly familiar with how stories were written or told in that era, I am not going to claim this to be a definite.  Nor am I going to consider a lack of description particularly damning, for the reasons I already gave.

With respect, I don't care what you expect or consider. That's up to you.

Quote

Now, how relevant any of this is to the actual OP is something I'm not completely understanding.

Then you should read the relevant parts of the thread. It was from a passing comment that some people, such as yourself, seemed to take issue with.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Horta

[Only_]

15 hours ago, Podo said:

TL;DR: Terrorism bad, free speech good. Mohammed should be criticized just as much as Jesus, Vishnu, Thor, and all other mythologies without any fear of violent reprisal.

I wish they'd make a game involving Richard Dawkins too.

[Sundew]

Chist and Christianity have been mocked for some 2000 years. It's detractors have come and gone. Yet Christianity remains. As for the game, this too shall pass. 

[+and-then]

20 minutes ago, Sundew said:

Chist and Christianity have been mocked for some 2000 years. It's detractors have come and gone. Yet Christianity remains. As for the game, this too shall pass. 

The sad thing is what is happening to those in the UK who ARE believers, IMO.  But that is what must come.  What the Lord looked like 2000 years ago isn't nearly as important as what he will look like when those on earth see him next:  

14The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire. 15Hisfeet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, andHis voice was like the roar of many waters. 

Imagine the jaded retorts we hear regularly here, being used to explain to the person described above, that they just don't care who or what he is.  Maybe then they will proceed to demand a list of apologies    Seriously, though, on that day there will be a great outpouring of grief for the missed opportunities and for the laughter against such a one as this.

Edited December 6, 2016 by and then
trying to clean up text size

[XenoFish]

I really doubt he'll return. He's a fictional character for one of the world's largest cults. 

[Horta]

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

It's not a matter of what I believe.  It's a matter of you going on and on and on and on about Jesus not being real because there isn't any hard historical evidence of his existence.

Annoy you a bit, does it? 

Quote

And your bias isn't important either.  You're foolishly assuming that Jesus does not exist only because you don't want him to exist.

No I'm not. I'm saying there is no good evidence indicating he did. Got some?

Quote

No exaggeration at all.  You are obsessed with Jesus not existing at all.  As if that matters some how.  It's his message that's important to Christians, not his actual existence.  Stop fretting over it so much.

It certainly matters to you. His message amounts to the ramblings an insane religious delusional who in effect, suicided...with a few flowery verses that themselves shouldn't be beyond common sense.

Quote

"Total lack of quality historical evidence"....that only applies to bigfoot.  

There's plenty of historical evidence for bigfoot. Far more and better quality than there is for jesus. We have many first hand accounts and stories. Yet it doesn't exist. It's the biological stuff we're missing (to indicate that any such species exists to begin with).  Anyway it seems a bit silly to compare a modern pop cultural myth, with an ancient religious myth. Hardly a fair comparison.

Quote

And what does "quality historical evidence" mean?  Only that which confirms your bias?

It means first person contemporary evidence. Preferably corroborated from more than one source. It doesn't have to be extant, mentions in other works can also be valuable.

Quote

If you claim that there's nothing wrong with Jesus being a real person, then why are you so gleefully obsessed with him not being real?  You're contradicting yourself a bit.  Either he's real, and there's nothing wrong with that possibility, or he's not.

It is in no way unreasonable to find it doubtful, based on the evidence we have. I enjoy that this displeases you. It would be even better if it allowed you some doubt. It's not always a bad thing.

Quote

And as for your last part, there is quite a bit that indicates he was real......billions of Christians think that he was.

Lol.

Well, that's convincing. Why didn't you say so...

Quote

John the Baptist didn't baptize a figment of someone's imagination.  The Romans didn't crucify a figment of someone's imagination.

That's right. He didn't and they didn't. Ponder that for a while.

Quote

Don't obsess over this.  He was most likely a real person.  In addition, he most likely didn't have magical powers nor was anything other than just some dude stirring up a bit of trouble for the Romans.

Ok, I'll try not to obsess, thanks doctor.

How about we reword your claim, to better reflect reality. He certainly didn't have magical powers, and while he might have existed, it is consistent with myth and there really isn't much evidence to indicate he did.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Horta

[Sundew]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

The sad thing is what is happening to those in the UK who ARE believers, IMO.  But that is what must come.  What the Lord looked like 2000 years ago isn't nearly as important as what he will look like when those on earth see him next:  

14The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire. 15Hisfeet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, andHis voice was like the roar of many waters. 

Imagine the jaded retorts we hear regularly here, being used to explain to the person described above, that they just don't care who or what he is.  Maybe then they will proceed to demand a list of apologies    Seriously, though, on that day there will be a great outpouring of grief for the missed opportunities and for the laughter against such a one as this.

I'm afraid that many who even believe in God think of him as a senile, grandfartherly type, floating on a cloud. What your passage and countless others describe is a Being quite terrifying. And consider men like Daniel and the apostle John had close relationships with God, yet when He was revealed in his true Glory they became "as dead men." How much more for those who mock and despise God. I'll have to go with Psalm 14:1 here. 

[danielost]

On 12/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, Still Waters said:

A Christmas-themed board game that pits Jesus against Santa has been described as "offensive, shocking and blasphemous".

Santa vs Jesus, made by London company Komo Games, is played by two teams - one for each of the festive figures - who battle through challenges in an attempt to win the most "believers".

It was funded via crowd-sourcing site Kickstarter which said it was the "most complained about game in history".

But fans have called it "good fun".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38181939

we are alreadu playing a game like that.  its name os satan vs god, at the moment satan is winning.

[Horta]

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

You're too hung up on looks.  It doesn't matter what he looked like.  Why is that so important to you?

Important to "us" you mean. Largely because I find religious scholarship and blind acceptance a farce.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, danielost said:

we are alreadu playing a game like that.  its name os satan vs god, at the moment satan is winning.

I guess Satan has the better team.

[Horta]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I guess Satan has the better team.

And better leadership lol.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

And better leadership lol.

Team Satan, who's with me?

To me this is just another ridiculous topic.

[Doug1029]

I don't know enough about Islam to mock it.  Christianity, on the other hand, is an easy target.

A new student from the Mideast stopped by my office to ask which direction was "Weest."  I understood him to say "West," so I pointed in the appropriate direction.  The next day he came by again, very upset that I had pointed the wrong direction - it seems he meant "East" and had been mooning Allah in his prayers.  Another Islamic student told me to relax - Allah has a sense of humor, even if some of his followers don't.

Doug

[XenoFish]

Wouldn't the fact that you prayed be more important than how and what direction? Doesn't make any logical sense. But it's religion so logic is out the door.

[Grandpa Greenman]

If the direction is that important, then he should carry a compass.  I do if I am setting up a new circle. Don't want to mess the directions up in a public circle, the Wiccans will freak out if you don't get it right. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Grandpa Greenman

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

If the direction is that important, then he should carry a compass.  I do if I am setting up a new circle. Don't want to mess the directions up in a public circle, the Wiccans will freak out if you don't get it right. 

That's the problem with being a chaote, even if you do it wrong it still works.

[Podo]

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

I wish they'd make a game involving Richard Dawkins too.

The problem is that he's still alive and could have legal grounds to oppose such a thing. If you made one I'd buy it if it was funny, though!

2 hours ago, danielost said:

we are alreadu playing a game like that.  its name os satan vs god, at the moment satan is winning.

Christians have been saying this for 2000 years. Guess what? The world is still turning, just like it was turning for the billions of years before Christianity's invention, and just as it will be turning for the billions of years after Christianity's decline.

[AdealJustice]

21 hours ago, and then said:

Certain "kinds" of believers in Jesus?  I wasn't aware there was a diverse group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

 

21 hours ago, and then said:

Unless a person changes their mind and heart about openly, willfully mocking Jesus, it's they who will be "taking it up" with him

For a universal deity he seems to exhibit quite the human ego. He'll take it up with the people he was unable to get his message across to?

 

21 hours ago, and then said:

The makers would never create such a game with Mo as one of the characters.  If you were honest with yourself you'd admit it as well.

They should but we all know the risks. If this were pre renaissance, pre enlightenment we would see the same response from Christians likely. Did we forget the witch hunts etc? Lets not act like Christianity was equally barbaric before being pushing to the point of being benign.

 

21 hours ago, and then said:

I just said I thought it was funny that after kicking Christ out, they apparently welcome Mo in.  Seems a bit daft to me.

I also find it troubling, The left is faar to inviting of dangerous ideologies in the name of progressivism

[+and-then]

30 minutes ago, AdealJustice said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

 

For a universal deity he seems to exhibit quite the human ego. He'll take it up with the people he was unable to get his message across to?

 

They should but we all know the risks. If this were pre renaissance, pre enlightenment we would see the same response from Christians likely. Did we forget the witch hunts etc? Lets not act like Christianity was equally barbaric before being pushing to the point of being benign.

 

I also find it troubling, The left is faar to inviting of dangerous ideologies in the name of progressivism

 

I corrected myself about the diversity of belief.  The one thing ALL those denominations usually have in common are a belief in the Godhood of Christ.  If one believes he is GOD then it would be difficult for his creation to justly rage against his "ego".  For those who reject his Godhood then nothing seems to be excessive but if they find they are wrong then that message will suddenly take on a brilliant clarity that, let's face it, was just ignored willingly before.  His message is VERY clear.  Very simple.  People just have to decide to accept it or reject it and once the decision is made, hope for the best.  I'm quite aware of the barbarities of the early Christian Church.  I'm also aware that in not ONE case did they truthfully use holy scripture to justify their deeds.  Islam cannot make the same statement.  Many here love to point to OT scriptures where the God of Israel demands total annihilation of peoples yet don't seem to register the fact that unless a person was of THOSE particular groups at THAT particular time, no such command was ever generally given.  There is NO such focus or limitation on the words of the prophet, or am I mistaken?  The verse of the sword is one of the last he uttered and it was totally open ended, was it not?