Denis Loubet’s Crucifixion Challenge

22 08 2008
some things in life are bad. They can really make you mad. Other things just make you swear and curse. When youre chewing on lifes gristle, dont grumble; give a whistle, and thisll help things turn out for the best. And...

You know what they say: some things in life are bad. They can really make you mad. Other things just make you swear and curse. When you're chewing on life's gristle, don't grumble; give a whistle, and this'll help things turn out for the best. And...

Denis Loubet is a graphic artist and co-host on the Atheist Community of Austin’s Non-Prophets podcast. This is from a recent comment of his on Pharyngula:

One question I like to ask Christians that makes them wriggle is this: If you could go back in time and successfully rescue Jesus from the crucifixion, would you do it?

I have yet to hear a Christian utter a yes that wasn’t then qualified into a no.

Me, I’d rescue the poor bastard in a heartbeat. Christians have no morals.




15 responses

22 08 2008

When I saw The Passion of the Christ I had a strong emotional response. A bit like when you hold your breath during some underwater scenes where the protagonist is at risk of drowning.

Except my urge was to seriously kick some arse. It just made me really angry. Especially the part with the flogging. It was at that point I was thinking “he’s not that heavily guarded, you softcocks!”

Then I realised it was “The Passion”, that I was missing “the message” and that Gibson probably wanted me angry at the Jews anyway. So I changed the channel.

23 08 2008

Where’s the Martyr’s League when you need them?

23 08 2008

I was just thinking about the same thing myself recently, what if I could go back in time, would I stop Jesus’ crucifixion? I had to answer myself no. Not for any moral reason but because of the major time paradox that would create. But then again I get bored sometimes and think all sorts of weird stuff.

I’m sure Matt with his vast knowledge of the Dr could back me up here.

23 08 2008

I think this is the appropriate time travel story. Just unpacked it from a box 😉

23 08 2008

I’d say no, just because of the time paradox elements.

Ethically speaking, you’d have to save the poor bastard.

23 08 2008

Good choice Bruce, I’ve got a few Moorcock books, plus read a few others, but never read that one. Must see if the local library has it.

26 08 2008

I don’t think I’d cut Christ down from the cross, but I would wait near his tomb to see who rolled the boulder back, and what happened on that third day. That’s always been the sus bit as far as I’m concerned.

26 08 2008

I don’t think I’d cut Christ down from the cross

Why not? If you had the ability to rescue him from being crucified, and opted not to, wouldn’t that be ethically “sus”? I think that’s what Loubet is getting at.

27 08 2008

I’d save the bastard for more reasons than just my humanity.

Plus, wouldn’t it be great to tell the world, “I saved Jesus from your sins”?

27 08 2008

Then I realised it was “The Passion”, that I was missing “the message”

The message being: “Isn’t it terrible how this man suffered? Wouldn’t it be terrible if he hadn’t suffered?”

28 08 2008

By way of a P.S., have a look at Chris’s post on atonement, where he compares a conventional “penal substitution” model with the “sickness” model advocated by Emerging Church figures such as Brian McLaren.

Conventional View: Jesus says, in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.” This is the good news.

Emerging View: Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news—that God loves humanity; even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her current path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.” This is the good news.

Needless to say, Chris supports the Emerging view. What does this say about those Christians who advocate the conventional view, such as the Arminian commenter who argues that the conventional view was “more Biblical.” (This is always the bottom line with dogmatic thinkers.) Do those who hold the more conventional view believe that rescuing Jesus from the cross would be an evil thing to do?

29 08 2008
Sean the Blogonaut


I will now have to find that book damn it

20 06 2009
Kevin Lee

Its interesting that you are an athiest yet propose to save Jesus? What motivates your philanthropy? THe fact is YOU CANT GO BACK IN TIME. Jesus DID die. We know that He rose from the dead. No person in his right mind would proclaim it (and get martyred – killed – for saying it) if it was not TRUE! His disciples were all executed professing their beleif in His resurrection, because they saw it. No myth could last so long and spread so completely across the world if there were no basis. You athiests better hurry up and see the Truth and then turn to your Saviour and beg His forgiveness. Its not your fault. You just never had any real Christians to follow..

19 10 2011

You can’t really be this stupid. I’m assuming that you have some kind of palsy that causes your left hand to capitalize random words. Seriously? You say We Know, Its True, No Myth could Possibly, etc. How do you Know? What do you Know? Where is your proof, and why do you believe it? Humanity has been looking for proof since religions (sorry, yours is one of thousands. Just another weed in the field) were created (authored) by mankind. Where is it? Please don’t insult the posters with “the bible, damn it”. The bible is just evidence of the bible, nothing else. I am unaware of any evidence, of any kind (otherwise it would have been trumpeted from the roof tops by fundies of all sorts) of the existence of dog or any reasonable reason for thinking that the existence of dog is more than infinitesimally probable. Keep in mind that in an “either / or” argument, the truth does not lie halfway between the two proposals. Please keep posting here, I love the comedy. Tell you what, if you like (in case you think you need the insurance and if it will work to pull fast one on your sky daddy) I’ll sell you my soul. Slightly used, never abused. Interested?

25 06 2009
Wes Hanson

Old debate. Already answered- Jesus chose the suffering for a greater good (cf. Matthew 26:36-56; Galatians 2:15-21). Peter even tried to save him. Nonetheless, I doubt logical conclusion is the purpose of this discussion. It is apparent that discussion itself is rather its own end. Such discussions hate conclusive answers. Just thought I’d leave a note for anyone who cares about the original answer to the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: