What if Jesus was an ugly baby?

"Ugly Baby Jesus" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Ugly Baby Jesus” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

[Buy the ORIGINAL drawing or get a nice PRINT of this cartoon!]

Really, apparently, there are no ugly babies. And if there are you should never ever say so.

But poor Joseph couldn’t help himself. He saw what he saw. He couldn’t just turn a blind eye.

If God is the creator of all things, and if God is the father of this little boy, then shouldn’t thing be looking a little more promising?

I mean, if God is the author and finisher, shouldn’t everything be just perfect?

This question has vexed us since the beginning. It’s the problem of evil. It’s called theodicy. Terry Eagleton’s book On Evil, is one of the most readable studies on it. The problem of evil is a reality, a real force in the world, where some people delight in destruction and creating ugliness around them. Anywhere from resorting to there is no God all the way to resorting to silly and meaningless theological platitudes, and everything in between, to try to make sense of it.

Sorry… all this from a silly cartoon about if Jesus was an ugly baby.


You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Adam Julians says:

    I get it David, please don’t feel the need to apologise.

    I find it hard too with being surrounded by evil everywhere. Where is hope, life love etc in the midst of all of of that which sometimes can seem as if evil is winning?

    I’d take a slightly different slant on it though. Rather than this being about “some people” and evil, I would suggest that there is evil or the potential for evil in all of us just as there is with good.

    I’m reading Adolf Hitlers “Mein Kampf” at the moment. I am curious as to how form a 21st century perspective, how obvious evil thrived. It is interesting that he intelligently writes about where he comes from. The oppression that he shared at the hands of the bourgeoisee but then him not seeing good in Marxism but a unified nationalism for the German people.

    It seems to me that nationalism or patriotism is not something unique to 1930’s Germany.

    I suppose my question is given there is the existence of good an evil – what can we do about it so that we end up doing more good than harm?

  2. Although I agree we all have the potential to do evil, I believe there are only some who actually do it.

  3. Bernardo says:

    Of course things are not perfect because there is no god (added circumstantial evidence that one does not exist) but that does not keep us from reaching for Utopia with said reaching been around since the humans evolved into beings of thought. Examples? Hammurabi’s Code (~1800 BCE) and the Egyptian Book of the Dead. (~1800 BCE, three centuries before the Ten Commandments were published).


    ” I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
    I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
    I have not caused anyone’s suffering . . .
    I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
    I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
    I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
    I have not taken milk from a child’s mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage…
    I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
    I have not quenched a fire in its time .” . .

  4. Gary says:

    I agree David. I believe there is a difference between “evil” and harm.

  5. Adam Julians says:

    I suppose David it depends partly on the definition of “evil” as to whether one does it or not. For example, I am ex- military. I server in the Royal Air Force in the first gulf war. I think the bombing and killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians was evil and disproportionate to 9/11.

    I think it could be considered that I took part in evil with that. I think it could be considered that anyone wha has paid taxes has supported that ant taken part in evil.

    So I guess it depends what you define as “evil”.

  6. Bernardo says:

    Adam, You might want to check your references for the number of Iraqi citizens killed in the first Gulf War known also as Operation Desert Storm carried out to free Kuwait.

  7. Adam Julians says:

    Bernardo – the reference to the number of Iraqi civilians killed has been a total number since the first gulf war and was a conservative estimate. Some estimations have been much more. Whatever the exact number is, is a moot point. The fact is that it vastly outnumbers those killed in 9/11. So who are the terrorists here?

    My point was that I suggest the killing of civilians in military action in the Gulf can be considered to be evil. I’d also point out that there was little threat of terrorism form Islamic extremists before the first Gulf war and therefore continued involvement over there is, I would suggest, conducive to a greater threat from terrorism.

  8. Gary says:

    Adam, to suggest your SUPER inflated numbers (most were killed due to conditionso f war, including by their own governments failure to to give two squirts of piss about them and using then as human shields) somehow makes my country’s actions in the war on terror equivalent to terrorism itself is beyond offensive to me. It is your kind that continue to make this world a more dangerous place every day by allowing these terrorist animals to wreak havoc and seeking to blame the brave men and women who go to war to fight them. Well you can go fuck yourself!!!!

  9. Adam Julians says:

    Well Gary,

    I hear that you have taken offence to my comments. My reference was to all coalition forces not to one country and if you can quote official figures that more accurately convey the number Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of the west then I will defer to that, gladly.

    I don’t accept that taking the approach I have an other that think similarly make things more dangerous. Rather, I think continued bombing of the middle east is insane. I think the military intervention by the west has created or added to political instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and given rise to Islamic terrorist groups.

    I come at this perspective as someone who served in the Royal Air Force who after 10 years of service was awarded an honourable discharge with exemplary conduct. I come from this position from both having served in the military and considered “just war theory” at masters level. I support completely the courage shown by those in the military in defense and I know how much of value it is to receive support having served.

    In the light of that support, I argue for being involved with a war only when necessary and as a last resort. My experiences have left me with a distrust for politicians who, in spite of lessons that teaches about war, do not cease to have enthusiasm for it.

    I suspect fear mongering to justify disproportionate retribution and agendas by those who don’t have to risk life and limb but profit from war and politicians being puppets of that with measure to deceive the public to keep the public in line with their policy about war.

    I thought I told you before that my dick was not long enough to fuck myself with. I’m surprised that armed with that knowledge that again you would implore me to do so.

  10. Gary says:

    Yeah you did piss me off…kind of obvious in my response. I am fucking sick to death of people calling the actions of brave fighting men and women the equivalent of terrorism. It is one thing to question your governments motives or judgment for going to war. It is quite another to call the fight by civilized nations against terrorism, including state sponsored terrorism, an act of terrorism itself whether you agree with the fight or not. (In case you didn’t notice…we didn’t fly airplanes into office buildings or send suicide bombers into crowded market places to specifically target innocents.) That is like saying the one who defends a weaker child from the playground bully the same as the bully. It is a warped and perverse way of looking at justice.

    You make accusations of fear mongering and deliberately deceiving the public in order to have an otherwise unjustified war. Of course the FACT terrorist apologists like yourself continue to lie about is that the intelligence community in a virtually universal judgment deemed the threat to be very real in Iraq and the need for war to be so paramount that the coalition formed was historic in their unison. It is those who want to change history and pretend that it was all lies and deceptions that do a disservice to freedom and aide the terrorists. And Frankly, I believe the evidence is quite strong that there WERE weapons of mass destruction that were simply removed and disposed of before we could secure them. It’s not like they didn’t know we were coming and had plenty of time to get rid of them after all.

    The problem with drawing moral equivalencies between the very real EVIL of terrorism and those who combat it is that the terrorists always win in such a shamelessly disgusting comparison. And more and more people who buy into such swill become pacifists, ensuring even more rapid expansion of evil. Islamic extremism is a very real threat to free peoples right now. And your silly statement that there was little threat by Islamic extremism prior to the first gulf war represents either a profound ignorance of history or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

  11. Adam Julians says:


    You crossed a line there with an accusation of being a “terrorist apologist ” to someone honoured in military service in defence of your freedom. You don’t have to thank me for the service and sacrifice I made or have to agree with me on my view about bombing by coalition forces on civilians and continued military intervention in the middle east, you have the freedom to do that.

    David Cameron used the term “terrorist sympathisers ” similarly to describe those opposed to bombing Syria. Something Alec Salmond of the Scottish National Party rightly pulled him up for and asked him to apologise for. The SNP make up the vast majority of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament and all voted against bombing Syria. Scottish members of parliament are not terrorist sympathisers.

    I would suggest that next time you make a statement that is bordering on if not actually libelous against an honoured military veteran that you at least have the balls to show you full name and not appear as “Gary”.

  12. Adam Julians says:

    By the way this will be my last comment on this thread to Gary David.

  13. Gary says:

    I don’t really care whether it is your last comment to me or not. And the threat of my comment bordering on libel is absurd. You made yourself a terrorist apologist when you equated my country’s actions in the war on terror to terrorism itself and suggested the fight against terror is the reason why it is spreading. In other words you elevate the terrorists to a moral equivalent and blame us for their actions. I don’t give a fuck whether you like the term or not.

    It is your kind of thinking that continues to deceive the minds of many and open the door even wider for the extremist mindset to take hold and grow. These animals send their own children to suicide, mutilate and oppress women, throw gays off rooftops to their death in front of cheering crowds, and slaughter any who dare to insult their particular brand of extremism while continuing to claim they are about peace. No concession will satisfy this pure evil or stop the blood lust. Only overwhelming force can contain this kind of extremism.

    For the record I have a great respect for those who serve their country in the military…right up until the time they dishonor those who still serve with integrity by calling them terrorists.

  14. Adam Julians says:

    I think the dialogue here shows what can happen when different views are expressed. Certainly watching the House of Commons debate on whether to bomb Syria there were similar accusation made about terrorist sympathising and counter claims about that.

    Surely this must show that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. We can argue back and forth about this ad infinitum.

    I take ownership of my approach to this for reasons explained. If someone wishes to be for continuing military intervention overseas then that’s their view.

    I just know what it is like to see equipment I have worked on to explode knowing it has killed civilians. I know what it was like for my uncle to be involved in bombing raids to civilian targets in WWII.

    Perhaps I am too close to it to be objective enough. Perhaps and perhaps not.

    Whatever the right or wrong of it, I doubt if the death and devastation caused results in any more or less terror whether one is a civilian in Bhagdad or New York. And for now, the West is the one with power and with great privilege comes great responsibility.

    Selfishly, I am glad I am out of it now an no longer have to put myself in the hands of a politician who’s decision making about war, I might not agree with.

    I have served my time for queen and country.

  15. Gary says:

    “Surely this must show that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”

    Absurd. Complete fucking bullshit!!

    Terrorists resort to using suicide bombers, gunning down innocents intentionally in public places for the express purpose of creating terror, beheading others for their dissent, throwing some off of rooftops and burning others alive, killing women for the “dishonor” of being unfortunate enough to be raped, sending their children into crowded spaces with suicide bombs wrapped around their little bodies, etc., etc., etc.

    NO ONE who engages in these types of activities deserves to be called a “freedom fighter”. And still you try to declare that these animals are somehow the same as those who stand up to their barbarism. Your accusations are reprehensible. And I cannot comprehend how your mind can become so polluted that you cannot see the difference.

  16. Adam Julians says:

    Oh by the way “war on terror ” is a term unwisely used to make soldiers out of what was a criminal act with 9/11. It plays right into the hands of terrorists who would otherwise be regarded as criminals.

    Another error was to used the word “crusade ” something that to any ordinary Muslim brings back thoughts of the crusades and “conversion by the sword”.

    As for “Mission Accomplished ” being unveiled on an aircraft carrier, well I think enough has been said about that.

    Why play into the hands of Islamic extremist terrorists who then celebrate 9/11 as part of a “war” with their people being “martyrs ” and talk of the West being on a “crusade” just as Muslims were killed in times past for not converting to Christianity.

    In the light of that snp politicians being accused of “terrorist sympathisers ” and furthering the causes of terrorism for being against bombing Syria seems somewhat odd and, well silly.

    I’m going to make this my last comment on this thread, not because talking about this in the way this conversation has gone is upsetting for me but I just don’t see the point of talking any more with the way it has gone.

    I just hope our politicians have made the right decision this time and it won’t turn into another fiasco like the last time in Iraq.

  17. Gary says:

    Yes I don’t see how you can be productive either by continuing to try to defend your attack on those who fight the evil that is terrorism while seeking to call the actual terrorist animals “freedom fighters”. Hopefully you actually mean it this time. (Though based on past experience I doubt it)

  18. Gary says:

    Oh and additionally…you need to study REAL history concerning the crusades because the notion of converting Muslims to our faith by the sword is nothing but a fairy tale told by revisionist historians who desire to create a history that meets their agendas rather than report truthfully. Because your version was in the movie Robin Hood does not make it a factual event. Fact is the Muslim followers of Islam were violently invading and conquering the entire region and they were finally stopped.

    Damn…no wonder you are so confused. You seem to get your sense of right and wrong from Hollywood.