The Insurgent Jesus Caricatures

The Insurgent, a student newspaper at the University of Oregon, has what I hope to be the final say in this idiotic orgy of cartoon madness.  I am only posting this because I have done so with all the other cartoons. Quite frankly, I am bored with this whole issue and I never expected it would come as far as it has. So without further ado, I present you a few of the Jesus caricatures as seen in the March-April issue of the Insurgent. The entire issue can be downloaded here.

212 Responses to “The Insurgent Jesus Caricatures”

  1. danielly says:

    stupid mind

  2. Braden says:

    whoever made this is a damn fucking douchebag

  3. braden says:

    at least im not the one going to hell. fuck yall shit pushers

  4. Royeth says:



  5. MarcDLS says:

    micheal of post 99:
    I said that I beleive in options. The only two options that can exist are that there either is or isn’t a god. I have contengencies for either situation. An Anthiest believs there is no God, and lack a contengency for one that does exists.

    Neando of post 100:
    My statements are based on observable facts from an unbiased point of view and the written word of your god, i.e. the Bible. Bitterness toward the Christian god is based on the conclusions drawn from the previously mentioned unbiased observations.

  6. Jayman says:

    So whats your contingency if you have the WRONG god? There have been thousands of gods worshipped throughout history, some for much longer than the jewish yahweh/allah dude in the sky. and maybe they get just as pissed if you have the wrong guy.

  7. MarcDLS says:

    In that case it is a no win situation. Seeing as how Christianity and Islam are the two greatest religions, each controlling about 33% of the world’s population (6.7 billion), the thought that if either one was the true god and would damn all those that don’t follow them would seem to make them unworthy of worship. The same goes for all other religions/gods since they control much less of the population. Unworthiness would have an inverse relationship to the number of followers said religion/god had. So regardless of which “God” I pin this on, they all have the same arguement against them.

  8. Neando says:

    Jayman, Marc used two terms: god and God. (Possibly inadvertently). As you say, people down through the ages have worshiped thousands of gods. Putting aside the question of their ontology, these have always been regarded as finite “dudes in the sky” with varying degrees of power albeit superhuman. As conceptually finite beings, there logically could be zillions of them and could all be scrapping for pieces of pie in the sky.

    The theistic concept of God is entirely different. There logically can only be one without rivals as He holds all His attributes maximally or infinitely–there just isn’t any room for equals. Also, He is by definition the uncaused first cause of all else that exists. So should there be any other gods of whatever number, they would be finite and inferior.

    Note that I am not here arguing for the existence of a God or gods, just trying to clarify the standard confusion. Should one claim that gods do exist, then there is the question of where they came from since they need a cause for their being, and if there is claimed a hierarchy of such beings and causes, such causes cannot logically regress infinitely. However, the question of the origin of the God of theism is fallacious–a category error.

  9. MarcDLS says:

    It was supposed to be “god.” The one thing that has always somewhat intrigued me is that people are more ready to accept the idea of a God that always has been rather than the idea that we are here for no other cause than chance.

    I hold no qualm with the theistic concept of God. What I disagree with is anyone who would claim that their god is the theistic God. I think that Christians are the worst of this since they refer to their god as “God.” This becomes confused with the theistic “God” when it should be set aside with anyone else’s “god.”

    The only contradiction I could see is that if the theistic God possessed all attributes to infinity then said God would both be infinity good and infinity evil. Therefore, the theistic God could not be any god that I currently know of. Though it would explain why the world is the way it is.

  10. Neando says:

    Marc, perhaps it could just be that people have good and valid reasons for belief in God and that there are good reasons why people have believed in gods. I for one can think of no valid reasons to adopt the idea that “we are here for no other cause than chance.”

    The theistic concept of God is strictly Judeo-Christian. All other theisms (e.g., Islam)are later borrowings. Everyone who claims to worship the theistic God can legitimately make that claim even though their view of Him may be defective in some way as He would still be the object of their worship (should He exist). So if the theists’ object of worship is not a god but God, why then “should” they think that things are on a par with polytheism?

  11. Simon Bond says:

    Howdy all,

    I for one can think of no valid reasons to adopt the idea that “we are here for no other cause than chance.”

    If it was the truth would that not be a valid reason?


    Simon Bond

  12. Neando says:

    Marc, On good and evil there is a fundamental error in your concept of theism. The view you propose is more at home in Eastern monism or pantheism. In theism God is the perfect good. Evil, being the antithesis of good, cannot–logically and existentially–be an attribute of God. Further, evil is not a thing in itself. Its reality is in the fact that it is a corruption of the good. Everything that God does (creates, purposes, says, etc.) issues from who He is. Evil is the corruption of this.

    On the other hand, if the universe is ultimately uncaused and “we are here for no other cause than chance,” nothing is here for a purpose and nothing can have a proper function other than what humans arbitrarily determine, individually or collectively. Evolution is undirected and purposeless according to Naturalism. This means that there can be no real evil. Religion of any flavour included. So then, it is irrational for Atheists to claim on Naturalistic grounds that any religion is evil. Undesirable for them, of course, but not evil. If atheists were of the calibre of JL Mackie they would understand this.

    So if your complaint against evil is made as an inconsistency that is within a theistic Judeo-Christian paradigm, you can only make it as a merely logical claim from the outside. “The problem of evil” is a Judeo-Christian problem that only exists within a theistic context. Evil really does exist and moral evil is at the root of it. Moral evil is the malfunction of persons who have the freedom to choose good or evil. The freedom to choose is itself morally good (an attribute of persons created in the image of God) but the misuse of freedom (choices made against our proper function thus corrupting the good) is the origin of evil.

  13. Neando says:

    Simon, if it was the truth it would be a valid reason. You want it to be the truth but do you know that it is or can be the truth? And if it is the truth, how from a Naturalistic POV of the human mind can there be truth?

  14. Simon Bond says:


    I never said it was the truth. You said that you couldn’t think of a valid reason for adopting that point of view. I merely pointed out that if it was the truth that would be a valid reason for adopting it. I would be careful not to take what I’ve written out of context.

    I never said that’s what I want or believe is truth. Nor did I discuss any part of what truth is.


    Simon Bond

  15. MarcDLS says:

    If evil is actually the corruption of good then there much be a force, or attribute, to cause that corruption. Being at attribute God must have that attribute to infinity. Hence, the argument stands that the theory is contradictory.

    “All other theisms (e.g., Islam)are later borrowings.”
    Christianity is not the first religion in the world. There were many beliefs before Christianity and Christianity itself borrows from other religions. Your statement is entirely fictional.

    In addition, I would like to point out that you have no more validation for your beliefs than I do for mine. Also, evolution is a logical progression of change for a species that ensures it’s survival in the environment it exists in. There is a computer that uses an evolution algorithm to invent things. Last I heard the machine possessed 3 US Patents. Seems as though evolution does work, at least in my mind.

  16. Neando says:

    Simon: “I never said that’s what I want or believe is truth. Nor did I discuss any part of what truth is.” Correct, I apologize.

    Simon: “If it was the truth would that not be a valid reason?”
    I said it would and asked “And if it is the truth, how from a Naturalistic POV of the human mind can there be truth?” What do you think?

  17. Neando says:

    Marc: “If evil is actually the corruption of good then there much be a force, or attribute, to cause that corruption. Being at attribute God must have that attribute to infinity. Hence, the argument stands that the theory is contradictory.”
    Firstly, I said that the cause of evil is that of persons who have the freedom to choose to do evil. This requires, in my view, libertarian free will. Essential to personal free agency is the independent ability to freely choose to do or not do an action, including moral actions. This of itself is good, and in biblical theism an important aspect of being created in the image of the Creator. But it comes with risk and responsibility. Everyone will ultimately be held accountable for this responsibility.

    Secondly, It logically contradictory to hold that God could hold attributes of both absolute goodness and absolute (or any degree of) evil simultaniously if evil is a corruption of the good. Corruption of the good is only possible of finite personal beings. The only way it can be claimed that God is the efficient cause of evil committed by His creatures is that they are not free, i.e., determinism. (A particular branch of Christianity, Islam, and most non-theistic religions are deterministic; Naturalism is necessarily so.)

  18. Neando says:

    “Christianity is not the first religion in the world. There were many beliefs before Christianity and Christianity itself borrows from other religions. Your statement is entirely fictional.”

    I actually said “Judeo-Christian” and not merely Christian. Independent verification for the historicity of the Old Testament writings date to the beginning of the 2nd Century BC or earlier, and those writings claim to be a record of human history that long predates them, certainly that predate any other.

    Jesus, his first followers, and all but one of the NT writers were Jewish to the core. Central to the claims of the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah (the Christ) of the Old Testament hope, and thus the continuity of Bible’s claim for unity of origin and purpose.

  19. Neando says:

    Oops, that was 2nd Millennium not Century!

  20. Dj Fishfry says:

    Religon is very corrupt and I in no way am religous it is a tool to get people to do what they want them to do it is responsible for millions of death if there wasnt religon or race things would be alot more peaceful.9/11 was religon related,the bible justified slavery,the holocaust was religous related.Without religon many evil things just wouldnt have happened

  21. Neando says:

    Dj, Most of what you have said is either false, distorted or highly disputable. But these ideas are pretty common, especially among people who have been burned in some way by religious people in their lives.

    But there is a real problem with the idea of “evil” if you are not religious. Evil presupposes a background of good, and good in the moral sense is normative; it requires a universal standard that is beyond the individual tastes and preferences. It possesses an objective property, but without metaphysics this just cannot be so. It is far too odd and out of place (they used to say queer) a thing in a universe without God.

    So maybe you really mean to say something like you hate religion and religious people and would rather that they disappeared from the the world. You really have to religious in some way to properly say that religion (or organized religion) is evil.

  22. MarcDLS says:

    Firstly, last time I checked the angels had free will and God had free will, not just persons as you stated. With that I return to my previous statement that there must be some attribute that causes one to choose to corrupt good. This is, of course, assuming that the only force in the cosmos is good. I believe that is faulty since everything that your God created seems to have some sort of balance to it.

    Secondly, I’m interested in seeing how you tackle the problem with the theistic God not being able to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Since the world is flawed, as it is, it does not appear that he could be what you’ve made him out to be. A God that does posses these three traits couldn’t allow such a world to exist. He would correct it for the force of good. In my mind, the greatest, and only true evil, is the choice not to do good when one has the power. If the theistic God were true he obviously allows evils to continue, and therefore commits the ultimate evil. This is, yet again, a contradiction.

  23. Korgan says:

    Regarding post 121, the statement “You really have to religious in some way to properly say that religion (or organized religion) is evil.” is simply false. Morality and the standard for what is evil, and what is not, is better derived from common interest and the Golden Rule than from religious nonsense, no matter how much you prattle on about semantics.

    Religion is ridiculous

  24. Neando says:

    Korgan, I’d take notice if you had an argument. Start with my “semantics.”

  25. Neando says:

    Marc, when I said “persons” I was meaning all personal beings whether embodied or otherwise. In #117 I said “Essential to personal free agency is the independent ability to freely choose to do or not do an action, including moral actions. This of itself is good, and in biblical theism an important aspect of being created in the image of the Creator.” If God created man in his image, a crucial aspect of that likeness would surely be personhood, and it is not unreasonable to believe that if God created human persons, he would not be less than that himself.

    When you repeated “…there must be some attribute that causes one to choose to corrupt good,” this assumes some form of determinism concerning human persons, which, if one accepts libertarian free agency, such determinism is avoided. Given human free agency, moral responsibility ensues. God, then is responsible for the creation of such agents with moral capacities (which in itself is a good), but not the evil actions such an agent freely chooses.

  26. nilus says:

    bastard remove those pictures of jesus if you were in my country somebody would have taken care of you

  27. rucker says:

    Thank you, nilus, for providing at last the long awaited threat of violence from a Christian! The proof we have been waiting for that the religion of the prince of peace, the lamb of god (such violent imagry!)is nothing more than another version of Murder, Inc.!

    But really it’s probably just a posting from a muslim or one of their apologists trying to prove that Christiainity is really the religion to fear.

  28. bryan says:

    God help who ever drew these cartoons

  29. Korgan says:

    Re post 128, bryan, why do you say that? The cartoonists seem to be quite competent at their drawing and therefore don’t need any help, whereas you have no evidence (examples) that show that your purported god can draw better cartoons than these!

  30. MarcDLS says:

    Re 125:
    Maybe I should rephrase the statement. Since one chooses to to corrupt good that choice is born out of a motivation. The motivation is spawned from an aspect of that individual’s personality. That aspect of the individual’s personality is either genetically programmed or taught to the individual. This aspect is the attribute that I speak of. Determinism and Free Will are compatible concepts so long as one doesn’t take an extreme stance to either side of the issue. You are trying to argue against Hard Determinism. However, I don’t believe that since on the quantum level the uncertainty principle causes that to be illogical. Extremes are not the norm, so one must not assume to take an extreme stance when it comes to reality around us. I don’t fault you for it since, as a Christian, extremes/absolutes are ingrained into you. God being the extreme good and Lucifer being the extreme evil. So, I hope you can understand me argument better now that you understand what exactly it is I am speaking about.

    Also, you made no comment about my second argument from post 122.

  31. Neando says:

    Marc, I wrote a reply to your second argument recently but lost it and then got too busy. Since there isn’t a quick answer that would do, I needed a bit of time.

    Part of that answer involves the concept of libertarian free will or free agency, hence our present discussion on that needs clarification at least. You will be aware that determinism has both religious and secularist adherents. The Christian tradition of Calvinism (which has its historical roots in Augustine) is deterministic. Despite a deep respect for the tradition, I do not accept determinism, hard or soft, religious or secularist, as being theologically or logically viable. The compatibilism that you espouse (as do the Calvinists) doesn’t work. I think of it as a slight of hand and that soft determinism collapses to hard.

    Since I am not a materialist or physicalist in relation to the human person, quantum physics is irrelevant. It is the soul, an immaterial substance, that is the free agent of human thought and action (dualism). Can it not be that other immaterial entities, e.g., mathematical formulas, can only be either true or false? This is “extreme/absolute is it not?

    You understand that I am not here arguing for these positions but just stating them as relevant to a coherent defence of the compatibility of the presence of moral evil in the world with the God of Christian theism. I don’t think Christian determinism can present an adequate defence, on one hand, or that the Secularist challenge that you present should require that I need to accept some form of determinism in order to give a *coherent* defence.

    Well, I have still to give you a reply to your “second argument”……

  32. NNeando says:

    The logical argument from evil against theism that you have outlined in post 122 began its modern airing in David Hume. He stated it thus: “Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
    We could state it like this:
    1. An all powerful God could destroy (or prevent) evil.
    2. A good God would destroy evil.
    3. Evil is not destroyed.
    4. Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

    The third premise implies that evil exists. See my post 121, 2nd paragraph, for a brief statement about that. You said, “In my mind, the greatest, and only true evil, is the choice not to do good when one has the power.” This is a strong statement for the reality of moral evil. My reply in brief, determinism (as per your post 130) requires that every action (e.g., choice) has prior external causes such that the agent does not have the power to do other than what he actually does. If this is the case (and I think it necessary to Naturalism), then what is experienced as good and evil are merely the sensations of pleasure and displeasure, etc. Good and evil having no reality outside the human experience.

    The first premise: “an all-powerful God could destroy (or prevent) evil.” The attribute of all-powerfulness here is power to do everything that is logically possible to do. There are some things that an all-powerful God can NOT do. Such as, anything that is contrary to his own character or nature, make square triangles, nullify the law of non-contradiction, etc. Included would be to create morally free agents without the power to choose evil rather than good thoughts and actions and vice versa. For God to create morally free agents who are responsible for the consequences of their actions is in itself a good thing.

    The second premise: “A good God would destroy evil.” This is at the heart of the matter. A short answer might be that God does desire to destroy all evil and that he will destroy all evil—in the end. Thus there is no problem with the premise as such unless it is insisted that a good God would not permit evil to exist at all. It may be that a higher good can be achieved through the temporary permission of evil (by free agents) than otherwise. There are in fact many goods that cannot be achieved without the presence of various kinds of evil, including acts of courage, heroism, scientific research in medicine, character building experiences, etc. If this were a world where everything was perfect and paradisaical, where would be the motivation to achieve, to perfect, etc?

    The third premise: “Evil is not destroyed” is answered in Christian eschatology. God will destroy evil and eliminate its causes. And since he has created morally responsible free agents, he will justly and fairly hold everyone to account for their moral choices and actions. For some, their life experiences may have produced bitterness or badness; for others, it may be that their painful experiences have bettered them.

    If you would like a fuller (and better) treatment, try Richard Swinburne’s paper: “The Problem of Evil”

  33. MarcDLS says:

    On the most basic levels there are trues and falses in mathematics, yes. However, on higher levels things are more fluid, hence why we have algebra and calculus. These things explain that which doesn’t lend to an extreme.
    Now, back to the inquiry into the origin of evil. As previously stated you believe evil in a corruption of good. The corruption of good is created through the use of the free will of an individual to choose to corrupt that good. Now, you postulate that libertarian free will is somehow an argument against evil. However, I do not see how free will does anything to explain the existence of evil. If one has the ability to choose between the good and the corruption of good what would make one more inclined to choose the good? The good you speak of is based on a moral choice. The problem is morals are relative to a society. Other than a book that claims itself to be the truth, you have no evidence to show a definitive standard for morality. You believe the book because the book tells you to believe it. This is circular logic. So, without a moral standard how can you even attempt to explain why one would choose good over the corruption of good?

    On a personal note, discovering this problem with good and evil years ago I’ve made the attempt to think beyond those concepts. The only two absolutes, through all cultures, I can identify are creation and destruction. I choose those over good and evil, which I see as relative.

  34. Matt says:

    i hope you go to hell for making fun for our religion!

  35. AMBRA says:

    How in the hell… NO WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could someone possibly have the guts to do something like this and then post this shit on the internet!! Who ever did this is going to rot in HELLLL!! I’m not playin’

  36. I don’t know why you would make this picture, whats the point of it. This is a man who truely existed on this earth, weather or not he was actually the son of God doesnt matter personally i believe he is, but this man, based on facts, not just the bible, existed in this world. He was perfect and blameless, never did anything wrong, he healed the sick, and he was crucified, nails in his hands, a spear in his side, a crown of thorns digging into his skull, he was whipped with the cat of nine tales, which is a whip with shards of glass, and rock, and anything else they could find, he suffered so much more then you ever will, and he did it for you. In return you make a mockery of him??? what is wrong with you, if i had done that, i would be so eaten with shame i probably would have killed myself by now had i done that. hope your happy, you’ll probably burn in hell, however thats not my place to judge, neither is it anyone else’s who comments on this forum, thats God’s place to judge

  37. Jayar says:

    Lighten up losers. Religion is meant to be made fun of – especially your silly one that makes fun of science all of the time!
    ~ and feel free to visit the mohammed cartoon post for how the muslims take it in their stride!

  38. MarcDLS says:

    The first reaction to truth is hatred. I believe the hate that the Christians and Muslims both display is evidence of the impotence of their Gods to stop the artists from drawing them or the webmaster from posting them.

  39. rucker says:

    “but this man, based on facts, not just the bible, existed in this world”

    As soon as I stop laughing, I am going to want to know one of those “facts” so go ahead and post it now.

  40. José (for all you know) says:

    ok, im catholic, but you really cant take a joke? anyway, the bible said jesus was hung on the cross naked

  41. Nirmal says:

    Lets just forget about all religion and stuff …. Think about this ….
    1.Jesus did not sin.
    2.He loved every one.
    3.He healed everyone who came to him.
    You may say he is a fiction but History as well as Science agree on wat de Bible has got to say if u still deny u must be blind.
    So by any standard posting such bad things is not nice.
    Wat will u do if such things abt u were posted on net?
    God knows … But Jesus is ready to forgive u because he loves you … the only person who would lay down His life for u ,just u .
    Think about it bro …. Jesus preached only for 3 and a half years and Christianity is the largest religion …. There must be some truth … Think about it …

  42. MarcDLS says:

    1. Jesus did not sin = “religion”
    2. He loved every one = “religion”
    3. He healed everyone who came to him. = “religion”
    God knows … But Jesus is ready to forgive u because he loves you … the only person who would lay down His life for u ,just u . = “religion”
    Christianity is the largest religion = false

    If you don’t consider Catholicism as a type of Christianity then definitely no. If you do, Christianity and Islam are about the same in size, but think of it this way: There are over 15000 different denominations of Christianity. The only about 70 types of Muslim. By that logic Islam is more likely to be right than Christianity due to being more cohesive. In either case, each controls less than a third of the worlds population. Since neither has a majority of the world they cannot, with any truth, claim to be the right one. If either were right they could, in the very least, get a majority of the world.

  43. rucker says:

    “You may say he is a fiction but History as well as Science agree on wat de Bible has got to say”

    While history does back up some of what the bible has to say, it contradicts just as much or more, I would say. For example, there seems to be no evidence that the Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt. And there is no record of Caeser Augustus calling for a census during his reign.

    As for science backing up the bible, please give one example because I would say you’re dead wrong on that assertion.

  44. Don says:

    Jesus is my life. I find this cartoon offensive, however I wish the person who made it would just know who Jesus is. The difference between Christians and Non-Christians has nothing to do with how often you sin. It simply is that Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and ask for forgiveness of their sins. There are many Non-Christians that I would say live a better life then me. For those of you who do not know Jesus or even think that he may be real I ask that you give him a chance like I did. Through his love I have changed into a loving person that lives for a purpose, which is to TRY to live a good lifestyle and to give him glory. If you want to know if the bible is true or not, first you must go to church and try to develop a relationship with Jesus. Give him a shot.

  45. Korgan says:

    Don, if Jesus is your life, then, sadly, you are living a fiction.

    Many of us here have already had the misfortune of having to spend time in church, and we have given Christianity “a shot”. It is plain to see that what Christianity claims regarding the world around us is false. Jesus, as a supposedly divine being, is just one more myth of a primitive people, awaiting the dustbin of history like other god myths before it.

    Religion is for the stupid and the gullible, and for those who wish to profit from them.

  46. Joseph says:

    If I can only lay my hands on you…

  47. muslim ummah says:

    fuck you!! these are not joke!!!you will be in the hell forever….don’t play with religion!

  48. HAHAHAHA says:

    ROFL. Religious people make me laugh. It is funny how Christians tell you that you are going to hell when damning someone to hell is a sin. Not even to mention that most of them are cussing in their response… Talk about faith…

  49. edward assaf says:

    hey , i dont know what to say but this men on the cross he didnt make any bad to people and he loves us , i dont know why people on earth or some of them hates him ? he didnt say come on lets kill every one in the name of allah or in the name of jihad like the islam ( i respect everyone religion) he said god is love, and no one should fear him because he loves us … he said im here to help sin people im here to love them , and to protect them he didnt say anything bad …
    people on earth now said where is god ? we want proof ,, well if u want to hear a music u cant hear it like this u have to go and to turn the radio , and god is like music u have to search on him u have by urself go and ask about him to listen his voice , my dear friend who put this images god will forgive u because he loves u and i u have any question about god and u want to reply add me on my msn :
    god bless u all

Leave a Reply