Over at wired.co.uk Ricky Gervais has written a piece explaining why he’s a good Christian especially when ‘compared to a lot of Christians.’ It’s the usual Christians give Jesus a bad name thing. Here are some highlights and a few reasons why he’s completely and utterly wrong.

Ricky says: “I am of course not a good Christian in the sense that I believe that Jesus was half man, half God,”

I say: Christians don’t believe that either, we believe he was fully man and fully God.

Ricky says: “So many Christians think that because they believe in the right God, they are automatically good and have a one-way ticket to everlasting life. Dare I say it but I suspect this is their main reason for believing. I’ve heard so many “believers” say, “Well, since there is no way of being sure whether there is a God or not, it’s better to believe in God than not, because that way, if you’re wrong it doesn’t matter and if you’re right you get everlasting life.” Win:win.”

I say: Wrong again. We are not automatically good, we are made righteous because we are completely and utterly not good. And it’s not belief that matters but faith and trust and they’re not the same thing at all. I suspect this though is in part what Rob Bell is fighting against, the idea that this life doesn’t matter and if Christians think that then actually they’re wrong.

Ricky says: This is of course Pascal’s Wager, which assumes that God if he exists would reward blind faith above logic and living a good life as an atheist.

I say: Nothing blind about it Ricky, logic says if there is a God and I’m a sinner then those two facts need reconciling and the simple point is how good a life is good enough? I suspect for Ricky good enough is what he’s doing right now, which would be convenient.

Ricky says: These are wonderful virtues [forgiveness and kindness], but I have seen them discarded by many so-called God-fearers when it suits them. They cherry pick from their “rulebook” basically. I have seen such cruelty and prejudice performed in the name of Christianity (and many other religions for that matter) that it makes me wonder if there has been a bit too much selective reading and reinterpretation of the doctrines.

I say: More than likely on this one Ricky, you are sadly right.

Ricky says: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” I definitely do not. Excellent. I get one point.

I say: Taking a few liberties there with ‘no other Gods’ which was not intended to exclude God himself. Lose a few points for being disingenuous and lying.

Ricky says: Even if this doesn’t prove I am a good Christian it does prove that the Bible is a bit inconsistent, open to interpretation, and a little intolerant. This is not peculiar to Christianity to be fair. And I like to be fair. Because unlike ALL religions, as an atheist, I treat ALL religions equally.

I say: You’re right it doesn’t prove much and you completely miss the point of grace and therefore Easter. And you’re being daft if you think that saying you’re right and everyone else is wrong is any different from a religion making some exclusive claims. Seems to me it’s exactly the same. So another fail there Ricky.

*update: just read this better response from Mike Cosper*