Jesus replaced with a Gregg's sausage roll.

Atheists don't understand faith

Christians are not going to issue death threats to Greggs, which is surely a preferable response to extremists of other faiths. Complaining that Christian responses are too weak, is surely wrong, it is fanatics of the religions who would slit someones throat for being non believers who are wrong. Surely we should be encouraging tolerance and turning the other cheek. Those who have a strong faith should not be insulted by this. That wasn't the intention. Many people with a strong faith find it mildly amusing.

I think Greggs sold out of sausage rolls yesterday , so they got a lot of publicity.

And you know many people country wide with a strong faith who find it mildly amusing suzied ?

So it's acceptable to mock a faith if it doesn't cause those who mock any upset ?

Jesus was a Jew and as such should not be represented by a food item that contains pork not clever. If Christianity is to be mocked in this way, why therefore shouldn't other religions?

If you could explain to me why the manger scene is an essential component of Christian faith Day I would be really grateful. I always understood that the story is largely a construct, and appears in only one of the gospels. So I don' understand how it is so important.

Because it isn't politicaly correct to mock other religions, example the Labour Party, mock Jews and your out,if it becomes public, mock Muslims and your out, mock Christians no problem

No I do not know many people countrywide, although I did listen to a long radio discussion on it yesterday and many of the callers said they were committed Christians and were not offended. I also heard someone who is quite high up in the C of E say Christians should be able to laugh at themselves and those with a strong faith should rise above something as inconsequential in the scheme of things as this . I know this is only anecdotal evidence, which I guess is the same as most people's evidence is on this topic. I doubt if the advertisers of Greggs intended this to be "mocking". This is your interpretation.

True, anecdotal

I love the blessing of the crib service on Christmas Eve

I always supported the famous Voltaire quote along the lines of "I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it" until the Charlie Hebdo debacle. I honestly felt that the right of that publication to proceed with their puerile, lavatorial cartoon, clearly deeply offensive, was not worth the loss of life that ensued as a result. Yes! yes! of course adherents to that faith should haven been able to suck up these insults, but there are a faction that will unleash hell if they are insulted. So in the words of John Manard Keynes, albeit talking about money "when the facts change, then I change my mind". The climate has changed very much in the last few years, imo we have to sacrifice free speech in certain instances because the ramifications aren't worth it. Therefore if we must respect the sensibilities of Muslims then we should accord that respect to all religions., because Christians are generally tolerant it's deemed alright to insult their followers. I do not think Greggs would have dared depict Mohammed in such a way, in fact I think it would be deemed a hate crime.

And to think we nearly got through a whole thread without criticism of Jeremy Corbyn!

I believe in freedom of speech but not mocking for the sake of it or defending it just to add to the mockery

But I do think there is a difference (and I consider the violence that has been linked to it entirely unacceptable) between a religion that has always used imagery as a way of promoting and telling its message; and christian churches were once illustrated in very graphic ways; and a religion which views all depictions of living things as sacrilegious and indeed outlaws such depictions. I can undertand being outraged if you regard any such depiction as unacceptable, but once you accept that such things can be shown a whole lot of other things need to be taken into account.

Corbyn is not the labou party for all Labour Party members even if he is worshiped as a god by his followers , there has been no mention of the vested one in this thread

Another flaky one here.
Don't buy their Heart-attack
pastries
But if I did then I would (and will) boycott the food outlet?

Thump, I can't boycott them, never shop there

Hi Trisher-if you get the opportunity, go listen to Handel's Messiah every part of which is from the Bible and explains Messiah's (ie Jesus) coming being foretold a long time before his actual birth. His life is well documented by historians of the day so not just a construct. And he was killed and then came back to life too! Wow!

Well - it is in poor taste; but I do think that any supreme being (think created unknown number of universes) is unlikely to notice or give a flea about a sausage.

Making jokes about religion is offensive to some because those who hold religious beliefs have them as the core of their being.

However I also think that the ability to laugh at oneself is a valuable asset, and freedom to make fun should not be seen as a threat but a facet of a free society.

Thanks Newquay I have heard the Messiah and have even sung some of it. It is a brilliant piece of music. It may have its roots in Chriatinity but it was of course Christianity over 1500 years after Christ had lived. The birth of the Messiah is of course disputed by Jews whose bible it is based on. Can you tell me which historians have said that as a baby Jesus was put into a manger? It is fine to believe and have faith but confusing fact with fiction isn't really helpful. In fact early depictions of the nativity often show the baby lying on the ground.

I see demands for Christians to explain why the Nativity scene is important to them as tedious. Why should Christians have to justify every element of their belief.

It's been suggested that its acceptable for one faith to be outraged at the depiction of its God because it sees that as sacrilegious. In contrast, it's ok for Greggs to replace the Christ child with a sausage roll because Christians don't see such depictions as sacrilegious.

I support free speech but I dislike for example, "jokes" that poke fun at those of us with disabilities. I never could see the humour in those awful 60's and 70's comedians who told racist sexist jokes. I didn't watch them so that sorted that one. I've no intention of buying Greggs sausage rolls, I've no idea what's in them but you can bet it won't be good for you. It's also highly likely the pigs in the pork haven't led a happy life prior to slaughter. I don't take offence at any of that but I choose to spend my money elsewhere. This advert just confirms I'll continue to do so.

It's precisely because the nativity is not necessarily an essential element of Christianity that some people who are committed Christians can laugh and joke about it. It isn't asking someone to justify something to ask for explanations. Explanations do just that explain and lead to wider understanding. But I suppose if you are against that that's OK.
If a faith specifically regards something as sacrilegious then it is fair to assume that they have the right to be offended. But the Christian religion has a long history of using images to convey its message. Over the years that depiction has changed. Asking if a manger is an essential part of the nativity is perfectly reasonable and isn't attacking anything. Of course I suppose if you have the sort of faith that doesn't question or examine things you might be offended.

"Can you tell me which historians have said that as a baby Jesus was put into a manger? It is fine to believe and have faith but confusing fact with fiction isn't really helpful. In fact early depictions of the nativity often show the baby lying on the ground."

trisher you are a) either trying to derail the thread or b) being deliberately obtuse and offensive.

If you want a discussion about whether the manger existed or not, go to a bleedin' theology thread.

The fact remains that all my life children have sung "Away in a Manger" and that a nativity scene has been displayed in churches over Christmas time.

Whether it happened or not (and indeed whether anything described in the Bible or any holy text has any grounding in history or truth) is beside the point! I suspect you know this.

You are mocking the faith which is important to many. Faith is blind, it is a belief and a way of life.

The story told is one of Jesus being born in a lowly stable - the Son of God made man in humble circumstances.

You can pick that to bits if you like, but it is a traditional and seasonal tale. the exact circumstances of a child born in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago is not the point. The birth of Christ is one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith and you know that as well as I do.

So do the people advertising Greggs' sausage rolls and they paid no heed to the sensitivities of millions of Christians. The careless tossing aside of Jesus in the Nativity story is crass to say the least.

"The ability to laugh at one's self is a valuable asset and the freedom to make fun should not be seen as a threat but a facet of a free society" I do agree with that statement Luckygirl. Nevertheless, I think society at the moment is in a state of flux. For example a few years ago, if asked to state one's sex on a questionnaire given the options of male, female or other, I'm sure many of us would have found that concept a bit of a joke, now it's standard. Certain issues we weren't even aware of have a reverance and respect accorded to them. Minority religions definitely. Christianity not so. The nativity scene for many Christians is very important, how I remember that from my catholic childhood, I certainly believed in it then, more so than Father Christmas. Is it historically accurate? probably not, it's no coincidence that it falls around the time of the winter solstice of the pagan era. Then again how authentic is Mohammed riding to heaven on a white charger or a deity that has the head of an elephant to give two other examples of non Christian beliefs.