I think #3.

They prolly figure the trinity can take care of themselves and are

powerful enough to stomp the asses of anyone (or just send 'em

to that burnin' firepit called haill!)

So, yeah,  #3 methinks. They don't want their precious holy text messed with.

But that's just my atheist point of view.

How 'bout it fundies ????

I'd say 1 for the same reasons, tho all three would be enough for a christian to forget his teachings and break a few his precious commandments.

Well technically they are the only ones who can break them. I'm sure my actions contradict most of them most of the time, but since I know they are not commandments I'm not breaking anything.

The funny part about blasphemy, and why PC people hate South Park is that theists dont get it.

In this thread you blaspheme the Christian label, but the same kneejerk reaction applies to all. To me, when someone reacts to you picking on their invisable friend in the sky, I get this image of a midget standing in front of THE TERMINATOR,  shouting, "DON'T HIT HIM, YOU MIGHT HURT HIM".

Blasphemy is nothing more than a word someone uses to placate their own emotions rather than come up with a cognative defense for the claims they make.

When South park got to atheists, and I knew they would, I wasn't offended at all. Were the stereotypes true? No, but knowing the "spirit" of the show, I laughed my ass off. Because THEY GET it and PC people dont.

WE CAN DISSAGREE, WE CAN BLASPHEME AND WE CAN LET THE WORDS FLY, without hating each other.

I would rather someone tell me "I am full of it" flat out and debate them on that issue, than to have some insecure person demand my silence.

So to the Christians reading this, before you break out your clubs and torches, ask yourself the following.

"How did I react to Muslims demanding the death of a cartoonist?"

"Is my god that weak that he cant handle defending himself without me?"

Maybe it isn't a deity you defend, but an absurdity you cant defend but are unwilling to face because the utopia is far to intoxicating?

Thats ok, call your god Allah, Yahwey or Thor. We as humans don't pick on each other because we have to hate each other, we don't. We pick on you because of your claims, and for any theist to say they don't pick on us is to deny human nature. I like to bitch, and so do you.

Anyone without a critic is nothing but deaf. Bitching is what we all do. But as a species what we haven't done is recognize that bitching is NORMAL. When we do that, we might respond more with words than swords. Words might make us react, but swords can cut.

I don't like to be cut. But if given the choice, I'd rather be called a bastard, than to have my throat slit over something as stupid as calling daddy a whimp.

I would say #3 because the average/fundie christian uses that book as proof for their belief.

I wonder if the idea of recycling bibles into tampon stuffing would be especially offensive since at least in the OT God seems to take extreme offense at menstruation (one wonders why he made reproduction work that way if it bothers him so much...)

Sure as hell doesn't mean it's fun to die!

If you're asking because you're about to try it I would phrase it like - can you explain to me why (insert offensive statement here) is offensive to you.  That might be more likely to get you responses and you can then question those responses.

Spooooooky, cause I was going to add what you said above to the end of my earlier response but then my pager went off and I had to cut it short.

Is there a twilight zone icon on the smiley page somewhere ? 

BTW Renee, your new picture is nice.

I'm sure that tons of redneck cliches that start with "faster than" would suffice.

God is a figment of the imagination. Figments of the imagination cannot "handle themselves". They must be imagined to handle themselves by delusional people.

Since not all delusional people necessarily follow the guidelines for this particular delusion which you call "christian theology" in the manner you choose to, and since these guidelines are constantly re-interpreted, re-invented, and generally composed of ethereal fantasy in any case, it is too sweeping a statement to say that no offence will be taken. Some people - even some theologians - are willing participants in the delusion to which you also subscribe just so they CAN take offense!

By the way - how can one have a "solid" understanding of theology? One can have a comprehensive recall of the tenets it examines. One can be so immersed in it as to have the ability to contribute to its pseudo-scientific and faulty philosophical ouvre. But anything founded on fantasy is hardly solid, is it?

Anyone who purchases and values a bible ahead of a dictionary needs a priority overhaul.

*or*

You can hit them in the face with their own hypocrisy: "If there really was a god, then he undoubtedly thinks you are an asshole..Oh, and he told me to hate you"

       Calm down Turbo.     

Why would that be? One can easily say "Daffy Duck is crazy" or "Montgomery Burns is an asshole" or "Harry Potter is a dork" and nobody would think thy consider those characters real.

#1 is just nonsensical since God and HS are spirit and do not occupy space. Although I am trying to picture it anyway.

It is ironic that most atheists pick #3, showing that they dont understand us too well. Although the words are inspired, the book itself is just paper. Worshipping the book, which many do tend to do unfortunately, is idol worship.

I would have to go with #2 but would like to Matt to clarify, is that with or without the courtesy of a reach-around? Cuz that makes a big differnce. If not, then I would go with #3.

Yeah...it was still worth it.

Define "real"

JAB, I appreciate what you are saying, but honestly, the thread is too young and currently has far too few responses for you to begin believing that "most atheists pick..."

As far as understanding the christian point of view or for that matter understanding the various christian denominations and their feelings about the holy bible, well, I do. I have studied the holy texts, read various other religious books (prolly enough to fill the back of a pickup truck) and have met and am surrounded daily by all types of xians. I, for one, understand all too well.

If, as you put it, many christians worship the book, then those many would be insulted by choice #3, wouldn't they ? So if Atheists do think xians would be 'most offended'(most as in sheer numbers) by #3, then I would say Atheists, on average or better, can't be too far off the mark. If many christians don't realize that books are just paper, it just goes to show their bliss, errr, I mean, ignorance.

What I'd like to know from Matt is:

Did you mean ALL bibles should be recycled?

Oh praise be the day!

Speaking as an atheist I can see nothing in Matt's three supposed insults that would cause any mature person offence at all, be they religious or not. All three are gratuitously offensive only in a puerile way and do not really attack the basis of a theist's faith - which is where true offence would be taken, and where true offence should be concentrated too. If that is what Matt thought he was doing then he was way off the mark.

They would be more inclined, I think, to prompt pity for the mind that conceived them since they purport to be offensive to religious ideals but are simply innuendo-based insults which invert those ideals and suggest nothing intelligent by way of challenge to them. They also indicate a presumption on the part of the insulter that is almost childish in its expectation of causing offence at all, and ultimately call nothing into question except the maturity of the person who spoke them.

Embarrassing, in fact, and rescued only by the dignity of some of the responses which Matt was lucky to receive here.

They would offend people of the same intellectual and emotional immaturity as the insulter.

No, because all three of them are too contrived to force exactly that knee-jerk reaction and are not even very clever at that.

I am very aware of how simplistic some US christians can be, believe me. But your assumption that this represents "the average christian" is wrong. It represents a fairly vocal group of them, right enough, but the "average christian" even in the US is an altogether more managed and docile commodity. Depending on the context of how you would broadcast your insults, you would undoubtedly receive the expected reaction from fundamentalist elements, but the vast majority of people (including many non-christians) would simply wonder at how immature you are.

A good piece of advice has always been to know your enemy. You have not assessed correctly the nature of that which you have set yourself in opposition to, so you are confined to sniping at the element which you do understand and exists on your own level. Raise your sights a bit - and the quality of your insults!

Matt, you need to get out and about more. I've a mental image of a pimply adolescent male locked 24/7 in his bedroom whose world view comes via a cable so is effectively digested for him before he even consumes it. However, I believe from other posts you've made here that you in fact have a psychiatric condition that does indeed confine you to home, so I won't pursue that analogy further.

I wish you well on the health front, and I mean that sincerely. But however you achieve it, it's time to move off the pap and on to the chewable stuff. Really - the world has quite a few dimensions to it that you're just not getting where you are.

But Matt, the thing is, the Blasphemy Challenge was done in the same adolescent mindset that your list of "unholy and offensive" sentences was done.  Granted, the Blasphemy Challenge was far more predatory in nature, in that it targeted young people by offering them a free DVD for simply committing blasphemy on camera, but most sensible people know that the stunt was fundamentally innocuous on a spiritual level.  

The Blasphemy Challenge had several things that your "unholy and offensive" list does not:

1.  An audience.  Let's face it--it's a single message board post.  The Blasphemy Challenge was hyped to death on this site as well as youtube and even the national news.  Pat Robertson probably doesn't regularly browse rr.com, so you're probably not going to get name checked on the 700 Club. 

2.  A call to action.  The Blasphemy Challenge strongly encouraged people to tape themselves committing blasphemy and post it on youtube.  What's your call to action?  To read the list and...fly off the handle?  Weak.

3.  A reward.  Brian and Co. at least offered confused and vulnerable youngsters an incentive to piss off their parents and clergy.  What are you offering people in return for reading your "offensive" list? 

4.  A reason.  The Blasphemy Challenge was probably the most profitable internet marketing stunt of the past few years.  Not only did it dramatically increase readership on this site, which in turn has likely increased the number of paid subscriptions to the site, it also got them a slot on nationally televised debate, which itself surely increased readership, paid subscriptions, CD sales, etc. 

But the website isn't even yours, Matt.  So what's your reason?  What's your payoff? 

5.  An actual attack.  This is the most important part.  Brian and Co. played on the ignorance of average Christians (i.e. average people) who don't have time to sit around and read about the finer points of religion all day, knowing that they'd think their children were irreversibly damning themselves to hell.  This cuts to the heart of what drives the average Christian--to see that they and their loved ones reach heaven safely. 

But what does your list get at?  Members of the trinity ejaculating into each other's mouths?  Satan sodomizing Jesus?  Bibles being recycled to make toilet paper, "tompon" stuffing, and porno mags?  I'm guessing your list will really ruffle the feathers of unintelligent, immature males who have never read academic books, gone on dates, held down jobs, or gotten out much in general. 

Starting to sound familiar? 

Matt has a Phsyciatric condition that keeps him at home? I guess I'm surprised because you write so well.