Good for you, the only movie I’ve seen with him in it is Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance…(by the way, I apologize for any mental scarring I may have caused by putting that image in your mind)
Joyce no it isn’t, there are things in this world far worse than sex. There is famine, greed, gluttony, murder, torture, child abuse, violations of people’s Human Rights, slavery, disregard for human life, 1 in 3 women beat or coercied into sex or otherwise adused throughout the world, human trafficking, and a human being’s blind indifference to their fellow human beings.
Yet your only concerned with premartial sex! You are the worst kind of Christian and may the God have mercy on your soul.
Worse, yes. Not bad at all, no — at least according to scripture.
Joyce is just focusing on the people she can reach; there’s no lesser value in working at the local level than at the global level. Would you attack someone for working in a soup kitchen instead of tackling hunger at the international level? Probably not; but personal sexuality is such a hot button issue for people, especially for many who don’t share Joyce’s beliefs on the matter and would rather the just shut up about it entirely.
In Joyce’s defense, if there were a starving child in front of her right now, she’d probably be more worried about that than the present argument. But there’s not, and there’s just Joe and Roz in front of her.
It’d be as unfair to ask you why you’re spending time getting angry at things on the Internet rather than spending this time feeding starving people.
I’m curious, can you defend Roz’s crusade as easily? Unlike Joyce, Roz actually seems to think about nothing but this issue and how to force her perspective down other people’s throats. At least Joyce’s efforts to force her perspective down other people’s throats is a part-time thing.
Isn’t it such a nice change of pace to have two equally hatable people in the same comic for once?
Honestly, I know people are used to getting on Joyce’s case, but Roz is definitely the bad guy here. Joyce, when confronted with someone who told her she was an athiest, definitely did not start screaming in her face. The once situation in which she actually raised her voice at anyone for having a different opinion was a couple of pages ago, and she’s now explained that she just did it out of concern for Joe’s behalf. Roz is being a troll.
Being fair all Dot said was “I’m an atheist” and wasn’t trying to lecture anyone. Joyce couldn’t even handle the fact that someone didn’t believe in god. Joyce is now preaching in a classroom about the evils of sex. Again, Roz is sex-positive. She’s speaking out for what she fervently believes in, the same way Joyce is.
Joyce had never known anyone who hadn’t been a believer before. She was shocked and speechless, but it did not stop her from later going back and apologizing to say that she did, in fact, accept her friend.
It’s less preaching, and more sharing an opinion. I’ve have conversations and debates on this topic, with friends, before and it’s started in ways similar to this situation.
If you started screaming out what Roz is, on a debate team, then you would be kicked off. If you said it on the internet, you’d be called a flamer. If you said it in a group of friends, you would be isolated. Her wordchoice is what I’m most concerned with, and it oversteps it’s boundaries. Instead of carefully explaining what she believes and why, (as Joyce does) Roz is just blatantly insulting. That is what makes the difference.
“ALL CAPS RAEG + a double handed point”
“What you pride yourself in is horrible + all my angry emotes >:(”
>Talk about him as if he’s not here and condemn his actions using the language and reasoning you would give to a small child.
Nope. Nothing blatantly insulting here. Debate teams would applaud it. Brings friends to you in droves. You’ll be real popular on the internet. All these things and more if you simply think “What would Joyce do” before opening your mouth.
lol, point taken. At least Joyce’s /motives/ are honest, right? haha
Still, I don’t mean to stick up for Joyce, but I do think there are others who deserve equal blame at times; blame that they don’t get because it’s all shoved on a single character. That’s all I worry about. I think it’s unfair to the stereotype she represents, when there are so many other (just as bad or worse, even if more quiet) stereotypes in this comic that get off scott free.
Joyce is just TOO easy to hate, sometimes, as a character, and I hope no one faults me for saying there have been times when I almost quit reading because it stopped being fun. That’s how I feel.
Maybe it’s just because I agree with Roz that that IS just fearmongering garbage, but I can’t see how Roz is ‘the bad guy’ here. Roz, whether or not you agree, considers sex to be a freedom, one which is often repressed in Christian society, especially in women. Joyce is basically shitting all over that freedom. More to the point, she’s being extremely obnoxious about it. If somebody walked up to me and screamed ‘PREMARITAL HANKY-PANK’ in my face twice for no reason whatsoever, I think I might get so annoyed with them I may just deck them in the face for being irritating. That Joyce feels she can apply her moral authority openly and obnoxiously to anybody is not remotely a good thing– and yes, one can argue Roz is doing the same thing, but I think Joyce opened the can of worms by lecturing about how exercising the freedom of one’s body is ‘defiling’ oneself and then telling Roz she was basically going to Hell, and I personally feel that considering Joyce went off on it first, Roz is perfectly justified in replying.
I’m pretty sure that Roz’s opening comment calling Joyce’s beliefs “superstitious, fear-mongering garbage” means that this is going to be two zealots on an intolerance-off.
Just cause she has a point, doesn’t mean you have to like her. I’m the same way. I don’t like Roz, or her reaction here, but I won’t deny I understand her annoyance at Joyce’s bible thumping.
Well, since Roz probably figures herself a modern daughter of the enlightenment, only one of them is being internally consistent. Joyce any day. I’ll take the ignorant over they hypocritical, thank you very much.
Yeah, Joyce, leave Joe’s soul alone. Its his life, and he an adult… of sorts… Its not her business to force her beliefs on other people. By behaving the she’s is, she looks like the bad guy because she’s the one who acting like a judgmental twit. It’s great she have faith, but I don’t like how she forces it on others.
As for Roz, while I don’t necessarily disagree with her, I do disagree with how she reacted. Screaming at Joyce and calling her beliefs garbage is no better than Joyce telling Joe how he’s going to hell for having sex.
Why? (I can think of two answers to this question that justify that stance, and that aren’t self-contradictory, but both involve some pretty serious undermining of social prinicples I think are important, so I’m curious.)
Well, first off because Joyce has no say in how Joe chooses to live his life or what he does with his body.
She’s not concerned about the health dangers of STDs, or possibility of pregnancy, nor stigma of being known for being a man-slut.
Her driving concern or more appropriately “judgement” is her religious view points. There may also be some selfishness in there as that she’s pissed he went and had sex after their failed date.
I get the feeling Roz has dealt with some crap in the past that has shaped her current personality/beliefs, given her dislike of ableist language and of referring to God exclusively as male. Her over-the-top response to Joyce seems typical of one who’s had a lot of bad experiences with fundamentalist Christians.
Well, when people have deeply held beliefs such as Joyce’s, and those beliefs are attacked in an antagonistic fashion, as Roz is doing, it’s been my experience that the person being attacked will dig in and go on the defensive, and from there it just degrades into shouting.
Insulting someone’s beliefs isn’t constructive, it just makes the person fire back with equal fervor and makes the person doing the insulting look like an immature, ignorant ass.
Kind of describing what we’re seeing in panel three. Two way street that business. Another good reason to have a talk like this with Joe in private instead of out in the open where anyone you’re offending can join in.
I know that Joyce thinks she’s just talking common sense. Probably thinks the only reason this even needs to be explained is that Dorothy is an Athiest. Still, go shouting off like that about sexual purity and odd were someone in the room was gonna be an equally strong proponent of sexual freedom and then here we are. Shame Joyce didn’t know that. Shame Roz couldn’t sit this one out instead of throwing oil into the fire. It’s college. Everyone is learning.
Eh. I’m never sure if you’re using Joyce’s – and other characters – religious nature as a strawman, David.
Could be a cultural (Australian vs American) thing, could be because I’m on the Christian side of the fence. But in my experience Christians (not the fundementalist caricatures you see protesting funerals) are generally very accepting and courteous people. They’re also often happier and more focused in their life, which I think is more to do with stricter discipline in their lifestyle than the actual religious side. That’s not to say we’re uptight, either; last week our bible-study home group split a carton of beer between six of us while we read the gospel.
The discussion I’ve had with most local Christians regarding sex before marriage is never focused around the ‘corruption of your soul’ thing. Any reference to the gospel is more, ‘if you believe in God, and God has asked you not to do something, it’s a bit of a dick move to go ahead and do it anyway – even without considering that Jesus sacrificed himself to give you a green card to forgiveness and rejecting that is an even bigger dick move’. Outside of that, it’s all about the practical elements: STDs, unwanted pregnancy and the fact that if you’ve had multiple sexual partners and gotten away without any physical consequence, it’s always going to effect your next relationship in some way.
Safe sex is always recommended, of course, but the real surefire way to avoid any negative effects is to abstain until marriage. It makes it that much more special and, theoretically, once you’ve reached that stage of a relationship you’re gonna be with that person for the rest of your life. Monogomy helps prevent the spread of STDs – that’s science.
Anyway, just my several hundred cents. Fully prepared to be flamed like crazy for not going ‘hahha, take that Joyce! Christians are completely wrong and immoral because of that small portion of the world wide community which makes everyone else look bad! Which is nothing like Islamic extremists making the moderate majority look bad!’
Joyce’s beliefs are entirely based on my own when I was her age. The flower analogy she tells Joe about is something I was personally taught. …I… I don’t think my life is a strawman…
Another iteration of the meme:
“I think your life is kind of like a flower,” she says. “And every time you have a relationship or a boyfriend or something, you’re taking a petal of your flower and giving it to that person. So you’re giving all these petals away. Pretty soon you’re not left with anything to give your husband.”
Joyce reads very true to me, having known a bunch of people like that in RL. Some I was good friends with (probably because they got more open-minded with every year and I knew how not to be a dick about being an atheist), so she gives me nostalgia.
The fact she was based off you is probably the other reason she seems realistic.
That flower analogy is utterly disgusting and degrading to women. Yuck. Like a woman’s life and virginity is just some sort of ‘prize’ and somehow a girl who has relationships and experience is worth less than one who doesn’t or an utter disappointment.
At least the purity balls are generally viewed as creepy as all hell in normal circles (even by some christians) but then they probably (pathetically) think they’re being ~persecuted~ by the wider world like most idiots would.
Now, wait, I _can_ see what you’re seeing here, but I think it’s probably a coincidence A) the “one petal each time” bit wouldn’t apply if it was a virginity thing B) it wouldn’t apply to Joe if it were something that applied specifically to women.
I was more referring to the quote Willis got above. Not really the comic. It was in full and seemed to mainly refer to women (and any relationship at all really).
I don’t know about the purity balls or anything, but it’s equal ground for both men and women as far as losing virginity goes. So, I don’t know where you’re getting the “it’s degrading to women” (If you’re refering to something in the link, than I apologize, I did not read that) Also, my understanding of the virginity thing as far as being Christian goes is like this: It’s like any other sin. In other words, if it happens, yes, it’s bad, but it can be forgiven, and no Christian friend of mine would ever view someone as “lesser” for having lost their virginity before marriage.
You’re attacking people’s personal beliefs, which do no harm to others,break no laws and affects only their own lifestyles.
How is that any different from attacking, say, the homosexual community?
I’m not saying I’m a fan of purity balls, or the midwest american interpretation of Christianity in general, but I do believe in leaving people alone when they’re doing no harm to others. Tolerance, we call it.
Ever watchd something like Jersey Shore?
Those people act like women are objects. Their entire objective is to get girls into bed. Bonus points if you take her v-card! Virginity is, for so many, something to be discarded as quickly as possible and to be abhorred if one still possesses it. In the modern social structure of dating in general the woman’s vagina is very much the goalpost. Guys will say anything to get to that point as quickly as possible, and then often discard the woman once they have what they want.
That sounds a lot more degrading than, for instance, honouring and protecting a woman, only committing to something as powerful and emotional as sex once you’ve pledged your lives to eachother.
You’re confusing scumbags for mere non-abstinent individuals. Scum is scum. The scumbags you describe were hardly gonna be the men of honor protecting their loved one you describe even if they’d been abstinent.
I loved that part of church. Paint it like there’s only the two extremes. You abandon god and suddenly you’re an unstoppable vehicle of sinful conquest. The good ol’ Faith Heel turn.
Some people can actually tell right from wrong quite independent of such matters. Some people have a fucked up sense of right and wrong on both sides of the fence.
I was just pointing out the incongruity of declaring the flower analogy to be ‘degrading to women’ with the second post. It’s difficult to follow this thread when the comments all start to stack up the way they have.
Again, generalisations. I understand that not everyone who doesn’t practice abstinence is the equivilent of those guys who just want to get into a girl’s pants. I’m specifically, with that second post, arguing against assertion that thinking abstinence is a postive attribute is not as degrading to women as alternative schools of thought.
And I’m saying you’re comparing two extreme schools of thought both of which are quite degrading. This isn’t a dick measuring competition here. There’s more than enough degradation to go around.
“We’re better than the cast of Jersey Shore” is not a stellar endorsement of the school of thought. The cast of the Jersey Shore is better than 18th century Europe, doesn’t make them any better.
If the presence of a worse manner of scum is the only defense of your actions then you’re probably not doing anything praiseworthy.
The flower analogy is only degrading to women in certain circumstances and contexts. It really depends on the person telling it. It doesn’t have to be specifically misogynistic. It’s dependent on both the person who told the story and the person who heard it. If the person telling the flower analogy doesn’t make it gender specific, that’s hardly misogynistic. If the person hears the analogy and mentally applies the lesson equally between the sexes, that’s also not misogynistic. The way Joyce told the flower analogy in my comic strip is not, I believe, misogynistic.
But the flower analogy is commonly used that way, no mistake. Often, “boys will be boys,” while girls will be “ruined.” It’s a double standard that exists both inside and outside of religion.
And the flower analogy can still be, regardless of misogyny, pretty degrading.
ScotchCarb, a close friend of mine abstained until marriage, only to find out that he and his petal-fresh bride had no sexual chemistry whatsoever. This wrecked their relationship to the point that it lead to eventual divorce. How is that desirable to any God with half an ounce of love for His children?
Personally, I’ve never fantasized about being my wife’s “first man”, but I’ll go with a smile if she’s my last woman ever.
Don’t know about Scotch’s case specifically, but I was always told that if you both love eachother and take enough time to learn eachother’s needs you’ll figure it out eventually.
Is that blatantly false? It sounds true to me, but if I’m being frank I really wouldn’t know.
I can imagine pretty easily cases where it wouldn’t work (for example, it’s possible to be asexual without being aromantic). Dunno about how commonly that could happen, though.
Anyone who has atypical tastes in sex could result in a sexually flat relationship. The same is true if one or both partners have self-esteem hangups or buried issues.
Sorry to hear that about your friend, dude. Like I said, I speak very generally when talking about this stuff because I’m aware that it isn’t necessarily the best course for everyone. It doesn’t make it a bad course, though.
You know, I think I just put my finger on *why* I disagree with the abstinence-until-marriage thing as a general policy (i.e., Joyce’s opinion that *everyone* *must* be abstinent until marriage, as opposed to my friend Emmy’s choice that *she* would be abstinent until marriage.) This actually seems fairly amusing to me, for some reason.
Allow me to quote a hymn to you from the religion I grew up in: “Love is something if you give it away, you end up having more. For it’s just like a magic penny, hold it tight and you won’t have any; lend it, spend it and you’ll have so many they roll all over the floor.”
Hey man, I didn’t mean to jump down your throat or anything. I was just concerned with the portrayal of a belief system that I, and a lot of others, hold very dear.
I should probably clarify: in terms of Joyce pushing her beliefs on other people, I think that’s wrong. Religious belief is a very personell journey in which the individual needs to make their own peace with God; you can definitely reach out to people who are asking for help, and do good works in God’s name in order to demonstrate His love, but haranguing people into following the Gospel is just as likely to drive them away as it is to ensnare them – and I say ‘ensnare’ with all the negative connotations that it provides.
For everyone else arguing against my points, I used the term ‘generall speaking’ quite a lot. That’s because everyone’s mileage will vary by huge degrees; I just think it is equally small minded and bigoted to dismiss the Christian way of life as WRONG without understanding it, or recognizing that for many people it is exactly the right thing.
I’m probably being overly sensitive, but this is kind of an age where being a Christian paints a big target on your back. There’s a lot of assumptions because of a crazy minority and a general feel that the normal behaviour for a Christian is this wild-eyed happy-clappy caricature. It isn’t a nice feeling when one of your child’s friends’ parents stops letting the friend come over to play when they learn that Dad is a member of the Church. And hearing the same uninformed argument from rebellious adolescants when I mention my beliefs gets pretty tiresome.
But if I’m gonna defend Joyce, the comic takes place in the bible belt. She’s surrounded by several thousand Christian Peers who aren’t visibly so because they’re sane, well adjusted people capable of carrying a conversation about a subject other than God when he’s not what’s being talked about right now and who’s beliefs aren’t so extreme they are alienated from the predominately Christian community. It’s all about context. Place Joyce in a group of fifty sane atheists and you could be construed as saying something about Christianity. Place Joyce among several thousand perfectly normal people who happen to be Christian and there’s really no reason to take offense even if you’re the type to do so.
I’ve also seen commercials telling me to wear protection! I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that there are things way more risky than sex that we do every single day of our lives, and those things aren’t demonized for some reason. If you want to address that, fine. If you don’t, also fine. But don’t pretend like me asking questions and engaging you is persecution.
I feel like the ideas and values which I strongly believe in are often demonized in your comics. That’s my issue, here.
I do agree that Joyce’s behaviour in trying to convert everyone to her belief system is the wrong thing to do. But that flies both ways; it’s hardly a lesson in understanding and tolerance if one party is proven ‘wrong’ and is forced to re-structure their entire faith system.
At the end of the day there’s a little red book written by the guy who I believe created me which tells me how I should be living certain aspects of my life. It’s helped me a lot. In the same vein I don’t like seeing moral stories where the dumb old christian is proven wrong and repents from their wicked ways, which I’m just sort of assuming is what is gonna happen to Joyce. Maybe I’m wrong.
My church pretty explicitly laid out nonmarrital sex to be a very grave sin.
Spencer W. Kimball:
“Sex without marriage, for all people, young or older, is an abomination to the Lord, and it is most unfortunate that many people have blinded their eyes to these great truths.”
Everyone loved that quotation.
Excerpt from pne of the general Conferences I attended growing up.
“Question: Why is the law of chastity so important? Why is sex before marriage wrong?
Answer: [skipping ahead]
However, those intimate acts are forbidden by the Lord outside the enduring commitment of marriage because they undermine His purposes. Within the sacred covenant of marriage, such relationships are according to His plan. When experienced any other way, they are against His will. They cause serious emotional and spiritual harm. Even though participants do not realize that is happening now, they will later. Sexual immorality creates a barrier to the influence of the Holy Spirit with all its uplifting, enlightening, and empowering capabilities. It causes powerful physical and emotional stimulation. In time that creates an unquenchable appetite that drives the offender to ever more serious sin. It engenders selfishness and can produce aggressive acts such as brutality, abortion, sexual abuse, and violent crime. [cutting out the homophobia]
Sexual transgression would defile the priesthood you now hold, sap your spiritual strength, undermine your faith in Jesus Christ, and frustrate your ability to serve Him. Consistent, willing obedience increases your confidence and ability. It produces character that allows you to face difficult challenges and overcome them. It qualifies you to receive inspiration and power from the Lord.”
I spent a lot of time studying this particular speech from who was then the current leader of the church.
“And while I congratulate you on your strength to refrain from the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs, none of which will do you any good and all of which will do you harm, I warn you of another insidious and growing evil. This is the seductive lure of immorality. I am going to speak plainly. We hear much these days of teenage sexual misbehavior. There is too much of it among our own youth.
Any boy who indulges in illegitimate sexual activity, as we define that in the doctrines and standards of this Church—and I think no one misunderstands what I mean when I say that—does himself irreparable damage and robs her with whom he is involved of that which can never be restored. There is nothing clever about this kind of so-called conquest. It carries with it no laurels, no victories, no enduring satisfaction. It brings only shame, sorrow, and regret. He who so indulges cheats himself and robs her. In robbing her, he affronts her Father in Heaven, for she is a daughter of God.”
As a whole it was portrayed as more than just a bit of a dick move. I can’t pretend to know Dave’s intentions, but this all seems pretty well within the realms of believability. I don’t really see a strawman so much as the majority of my peer circle even to this day.
Though I disagree with the overall intent of gangler’s above quotes, there are a couple points in particular I’d like to pick at.
First point:
“However, those intimate acts are forbidden by the Lord outside the enduring commitment of marriage because they undermine His purposes. Within the sacred covenant of marriage, such relationships are according to His plan. When experienced any other way, they are against His will.”
So, all relationships within the “sacred covenant of marriage” are according to God’s plan, and all non-marital relationships are not? Why? There are plenty of marriages out there that people rush into and find themselves to be extremely unhappy, ultimately to divorce, or worse, spend the rest of their life in a bad relationship. Conversely, there are plenty of people who spend their lives together happily without ever marrying, either because it isn’t allowed (i.e. homosexuality) or because they simply don’t feel they need to.
Even if you assume that some unhappy relationships are part of God’s plan (God putting us through hard times so we learn from the experience, etc.) and vice versa… What’s so special about a priest saying a few words over the couple that it automatically earns God’s seal of approval, and furthermore is the only way to do so?
Second point:
“Any boy who indulges in illegitimate sexual activity, as we define that in the doctrines and standards of this Church—and I think no one misunderstands what I mean when I say that—does himself irreparable damage and robs her with whom he is involved of that which can never be restored. There is nothing clever about this kind of so-called conquest. It carries with it no laurels, no victories, no enduring satisfaction. It brings only shame, sorrow, and regret. He who so indulges cheats himself and robs her. In robbing her, he affronts her Father in Heaven, for she is a daughter of God.”
Why is it the man that carries the responsibility and sin of choosing to have sex? And why is it only the woman who is “irreparably damaged”? Though it’s certainly not always true, much of the time the man and the woman both choose to have sex and share equal responsibility for the decision. Why is the man the defiler, and the woman the victim? I’d like to think we’ve progressed beyond traditional gender roles a bit more than that.
Personal thoughts:
While I agree that teenage sex in general is a bad idea due to lack of emotional maturity, and careless sex is an easy way to get hurt emotionally or saddled with an unwanted pregnancy or STD, I have no problem with premarital sex in a long-term relationship when both partners care for and trust each other, and in fact think it’s a good idea. Compatibility with your partner is a complex issue, and sexual compatibility is one aspect of that. I think it’s best to explore how the two of you fit together (if you’ll pardon the double entendre) in as many ways as possible before marriage to be sure you’re marrying someone you can spend the rest of your life with, instead of waiting and running into trouble later like gueibor’s friend did.
Prefacing this with the fact that I don’t share these beliefs, they are merely what I was taught until I could move out.
1) Gods plan is all about the family unit. It begins and ends there. Keeping in mind that this is a religion that marries for time and all eternity rather than till death do you part. A relationship lacking the marriage vows is not eternal. Merely a passing fling during your earthy existence. Not a path to lasting happiness, leaving you alone and lacking in family in the afterlife as you pay for your sins. As a side note I actually do think that the church has a pretty cool view on the notion of paying for sins, but that’s another matter entirely.
Basically the equivalent to religions that require a baptism ceremony to get into heaven. You need the marriage ceremony to get the best afterlife.
2) If you pay attention you’ll notice that the man was actually irreparably damaged in that quote as well. Think of it as a severe spiritual injury leaving you spiritually handicapped. That address was made specifically to the young men of the church. There were no women in the room. They were attending some other conference. So that’s why its’ worded that way.
Obviously I’m not endorsing any of this. Just using a couple quotes from my youth as an example of how Joyce’s views on these things aren’t necessarily outrageous straw-man levels. In many places its’ pretty par for the course.
Hey, that’s really awesome that you’re happier, more focused, more disciplined, and more capable of having meaningful relationships than the rest of us. Congratulations! Also, I’m sorry Christians are so persecuted by the filthy heathens. That’s really terrible for you guys. You have it so rough. 🙁
Speaking of a trend is not speaking of specifics. Saying that people who make a place for religion in their lives tend to be happier and more focused is an observation, not a rule by which we must abide–a lot like saying that obese people are more likely to get cancer. Are there fat people who don’t get cancer? Sure! Are there skinny people who do? Yup, sure are. But your odds go up if you’re obese.
ScotchCarb was making an observation about people he had seen–and unfortunately, this is a trend I’ve seen as well, if you’re talking about people in general with a spiritual life, and not just Christians. As someone who values the scientific method, I’m forced to take his observation into account, rather than rejecting it to suit my own worldview.
We have a lot of Christians like Joyce here in the US. They’re the driving force fighting for public school sex education to teach only abstinence and not mention any form of artificial birth control.
I’ve heard of an exercise done in abstinence-only sex ed programs that’s similar to Joyce’s flower analogy – have all the kids handle an unwrapped piece of candy and ask if anyone wants to eat it afterwards. Because having sex with someone you don’t intend to marry is totally like letting the nose-picker in the back of the class handle candy you plan to give to someone you love!
…I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m rooting for Roz in this one. I have no doubt she’ll go overboard and belittle everything Joyce believes in, but at this point my annoyance at Joyce is making me wonder if she NEEDS that.
No. No one ever needs that. Belittling a person’s beliefs will never help, all it will do is force that person to retreat back into them, strengthen those beliefs, and give the person a persecution complex.
And that’s not even getting into how goddamn rude it is to belittle someone’s beliefs. For all Joyce’s faults, she has not yet said “Your beliefs are garbage” to anyone.
It was pretty heavily implied when she and Joe had the sex talk. She might not have said the words “Your beliefs are garbage”, but she got the message across loud and clear.
I’d need to go back to the story about her date with Joe but I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the person who thought it necessary to convert a potential husband from Judaism.
I like where the part about superstitious garbage was preceded by “For God’s sake”.
I’m not putting words (or anything else) in Roz’s mouth as far as her beliefs, but if she turns out not to believe in God, wouldn’t that be roughly equivalent to her dislike of enablist language?
Is it hypocritical for her to invoke God when expressing her frustration with Joyce? Not really. As a minor point, she might have a God, but not Joyce’s somewhat restrictive, uptight God. More importantly, “for God’s sake” is one of those things, like “god dammit,” that has become such common parlance that faith in one or more gods is not necessary for a person to use those phrases. I am an apatheist and I say “god dammit” when I stub a toe because, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, it’s much simpler than saying “Curse you, random fluctuations of the space-time continuum!”
Well there’s also the fact that she personally objects to god being referred to as exclusively male. That’s not necessarily something an areligious person wouldn’t care about but it makes it more likely that she believes in something.
Joyce that doesn’t even work by your own Dang religion! Jesus can always forgive, that’s kinda his whole deal. By putting up some kind of barrier of sin that Jesus can’t cross, you’re actually sacrilegiously doubting his divine powers. So yeah, dumb even for a fundie here.
You can be forgiven, but healing your immortal soul is another matter entirely. Sin leaves you spiritually weak, damages your faith, and impairs your ability to see Gods’ divine love.
Yes, Jesus can always forgive, but Christianity tends to look at repeated and unrepentant sin as a rejection of that forgiveness. So it doesn’t matter if Jesus’ magic fertilizer can put those petals back if you’re going to tell him to frak off because you don’t want it.
He can repent right at the end of his life and that totally counts. That’s a bedrock principle of Christianity… which is also super easy to game the system with, but hey infinite patience means he doesn’t mind.
There is a fundamental moral difference between hitting and hitting back. Roz is doing the latter and therefore is (so far, at least) in the morally superior position.
Unless she puts at least as much pressure on Joyce to start having sex as Joyce is putting on others to stop, she’ll keep that (relative) moral high ground, too.
Gandhi and MLK would disagree with you about the moral high ground of hitting back. It takes two to fight, and Roz could have handled Joyce in a completely different way, such as asking her to back off since Joe didn’t share her beliefs (without directly attacking her) or by simply ignoring her.
Instead, she came out swinging in a nasty way. If you want to use the punch analogy, Roz hit below the belt in someone else’s fight.
Not so. Joyce’s outburst is based on superstition. Roz’s outburst is based on the rejection of superstition. Whereas Joyce is fueled by belief (or “faith”), Roz is fueled by reason. So Roz is more right–it’s not just some arbitrary opinion she (or I, or Azukar) happen to “believe” in.
Of course, I may be going out ona limb here by putting a lot of my own reasoning into Roz’s reaction, but I think I understand how she thinks. Whereas I have Dorothy coined as a hardcore Democrat, I would be thrilled if Roz turns out to be libertarian.
What you call “reason” is just a form of faith itself. There’s no objective evidence for or against the existence of God — only strong personal opinion based on subjective experience.
The one making the claim to the positive has the burden of proof, until something is proven it does not exist. That’s how it works, no strong oppinion nonsense, just how it works.
It takes zero faith to know unicorns don’t exist despite no evidence disproving them. It does however take faith to believe in soemthing without evidence.
Negative statements carry just as much of a burden of proof as any other claim of truth. To say otherwise is to say that someone claiming Barack Obama exists has an inherently larger burden of proof than someone saying that he doesn’t exist.
Claiming that saying “God doesn’t exist” carries less of a burden of proof than “God does exist” is nothing but a dodge for intellectually lazy. Both ultimately lie in the land of scientifically unprovable conjecture, and one unprovable claim is not superior to the other merely by slipping “not” in there.
Who cares if folks can prove God exists or not? The actually important thing is that since nobody can prove he exists or doesn’t exist, that makes him functionally irrelevant to basically everything. He may as well not exist, since he is not verifiable. He matters as much as the invisible, intangible raccoon that I claim sits on my lap.
I think that’s the thing that gets overlooked when these burden of proof arguments come up. If I can’t test for it, why should I care whether it technically exists or not? Burden of proof is a red herring.
It’s a misunderstanding of the meaning of burden of proof, basically. It does not mean that if there is a yes or no answer then only yes has to prove itself. It means the burden of showing something to be provable at all. Where apologists cheat is saying that if you do not agree with them, then you are making a positive claim about the unknowable (the unknowable is X rather than Y) rather than the case being you complaining about the unknowability of the case they are making in general. What astounds me is how many “agnostics” buy into this idea, and choose fence-sitting out of fear of making a “positive” claim.
It doesn’t. Not really. It just gets on my nerves when people claim atheism isn’t a matter of faith or that simply choosing not to believe is an act of logic.
Logic is what you’re saying. That without evidence, there’s no reasons to care. Saying, “I don’t know,” is logic. Saying, “I don’t care / think its relevant,” is too. Saying, “I know for certain that there is no God, and it’s solely on you to prove otherwise,” isn’t logic. It’s just fundamentalism, in all its sneering glory.
Not that I think faith is a bad thing. I just don’t care for people who put themselves on a pedestal of Logic and Truth and sneer at people who think otherwise when all they have is opinion.
No, Valdrax, it is always positive claims that carry the burden of proof, since negative claims by definition *cannot* be proven.
To take your example, person A can claim that Barack Obama exists whereas person B can claim that he does not. The burden of proof lies on A, but since she can prove Obama’s existance quite easily, B has then been proven to be *wrong* and should get learn from this or at least stop spouting nonsense.
That’s just nonsense. Any statement of truth requires proof, *if you want to claim it is logically supported.* Otherwise it’s just opinion, assumption, and faith. (Not that I have a problem with it being that; I just have a problem with people claiming it isn’t.)
Also, saying that there’s less burden on “God doesn’t exist” just because it can’t be proven is also kind of a funny statement since it implies that “God exists” is in a different boat.
Criteria of truth still exist, whether you like them or not. The claim “all opinions are equal” is a false one. All arguments are not equal – some are a lot more robust, self-consistent, and supported by evidence. Defending “faith” on the basis that you need faith for everything is like defending bulimia on the basis that everyone has to eat.
I would argue that Roz is actually being worse here. Joyce is a bit extreme, yes, but you do not call someone’s beliefs “superstitious garbage” to their face, for several reasons. It doesn’t help, it makes you look every bit as close-minded, it leaves no room for debate, and it’s just plain rude.
Once someone walks into the classroom and just starts throwing out decibels like they were pez without even making coherent sentences the notions of debate, politeness, and general civility got thrown out the window.
Maybe you’d look at Joyce and think “I need to treat her as if her beliefs are valid. I’m sure we can talk this out”, but truthfully reasoning with someone like this would be the last thing on my mind and I don’t think I’m a bad person for it.
Joyce however, while her heart is kind of in the right place is just being ridiculous here. I know, I know, she’s adjusting. I sympathize with her a lot. I love her character. Truth be told I haven’t exactly been sold on Roz yet, but Roz’s behavior here seems appropriate for the situation. Joyce’s patently does not.
You wanna confront the guy on his lifestyle, at the very least have the courtesy to do so in normal speaking volume, with your wits about you, during some one on one time. Shouting incoherent nonsense at the man in a blatantly antagonistic fashion in front of the whole class is not the way you go about things.
Point of interest. I would just love to know if that’s how she was taught. The shouting and antagonism and public shaming, are those the tools that were used to instil a love of Christ in her?
David, I’m real curious now – what sort of religious tradition does Joyce (and yourself) come from? What is the definition of “soul” behind the analogy?
I was raised fundamentalist (Protestant) Christian, of the “nondenominational” variety. Most of my friends were homeschooled, though I was not. My mom considered it a few times, but I was enough of a social pariah already.
I’d explain what Joyce meant by soul, but I’d explain too much about Joyce’s thought process and specific biases and possibly give too much away. 🙂 I’d rather spell them out slowly in the comic.
…It’s very true that Joyce is butting in on an issue that she’s got no business in, and proselytizing the tenets of your faith where its not welcome is a pretty big no-no. That said, I find it hard to be genuinely mad at her in this situation. Annoyed and exasperated, sure, but not really mad. She’s got good intentions in this, and when you get down to it, she’s a sweet girl who I think really believes that she can save people doing things like this. Admittedly, her previous experiences with Joe likely had some influence on her initial outburst, but I don’t doubt that she at least means well here.
Of course, cue the statement on Satan’s choice in pavement, and Joyce is definitely stepping outta line in this instance. I’m not debating that. I just can’t really get outright mad at her for it. -shrug-
I’m still apprehensive about Roz. Her outburst here is pretty justified in that Joyce pulled a similar one in what was an apparently full class leaving her open to a valid summation of her litany from an opposing viewpoit… But something about her and whatever her message/purpose/crusade/thingamabopper may by just rubs me the wrong way. -yetanothershrug-
There’s only so much a person can take! And, yeah, Roz gives off that creepy Xanatos Gambit radiation like no one’s business, but I’d put 20 bucks on her in a catfight or a debate.
But Dorothy will provide the more reasonable position and view on atheism?
Maybe?
I mean Joyce and her are possible friends and all. I can’t see her agreeing with Joyce’s viewpoints or the way Roz is going about presenting hers.
Dorothy for referee?
(Then again she DID judge Roz so it’s not like she’s entirely unbiased, but view people aren’t biased in some form based on their own experiences/how they were raised etc. after all, it’s why fandom is sometimes so… interesting sometimes too even without putting in religion or politics in it. Reflecting your own deep desires and viewpoints when two characters argue and all I guess sometimes for some fans.)
This is… strange. I guess it’s because I’m an ex-christian but I can sort of relate to both Joyce and Roz here- granted I was pretty angry deep down after I left (the whole feeling you’re being lied to and all), But realising EVERYONE who ‘lied’ to you actually believed the lie presents an interesting concundrum-and as such means nowadays I’m more or less ‘leave them alone unless they impinge on other peoples rights or try to dictate how science or logic really works’.
Joyce butted in here on something which wasn’t her business- though Roz’s reaction is immature all the same. I guess it depends on her past at how understandable it is. I mean when you feel a religion not your own is dictating or trying to dictate your whole entire life and a set of values not yours (and with a sister in politics and the difficulties of not being christian in american politics or the public eye, it could count double for her) then some anger would be likely, if not expressed, at least boiling beneath the surface and affecting certain actions.
Not really an excuse, but a possible reason.
Thing is though, annoying as Joyce can be (and she was also horrifically immature, shouting at Joe not in this strip but earlier), Joyce isn’t the worst of Christianity- not that she shouldn’t be challenged mind you (albeit it more maturely) but she isn’t a Fox news anchor or from the WBC (though then bringing yourself down to their level is not something anyone wants either). I mean she realised her reaction to Dorothy’s atheism was stupid and wanted to be friends anyway for instance.
Joyce has potential to grow up- but reactions like this are perhaps more likely to slow any potential growth depending on how the next strip or two go and convince Joyce in her mind that obviously she’s just upset because she’s being confronted with the ‘truth’!
C’mon Roz and Joyce haters, how mature can we expect everyone to be? They’re college freshmen! What Willis (I think) is doing, is taking the major traits of the diverse characters he’s created over the years and reimagining them in younger bodies with more limited perspectives. Of course they’ll piss you off! Of course they’ll piss each other off! I, for one, am enjoying watching the drama unfold.
Whilst I used to react in a similar way to Roz (although not with the same words; I never said garbage or synonyms) now my first reaction would be: Prove that I have a soul.
I don’t believe in souls. I don’t believe in faith, I don’t believe in belief. You can call me faithless…
I can prove that you have faith and I can prove you have belifs. Because you are a human, you can be Atheist and dont belive in god or find the idea pointless. But you may never be faithless.
The only option left is you are a spambot, then yeah, you are faithless
We know he believes in porking, but does he eat pork?
I know he’s Jewish, but I don’t know if he’s kosher or not.
More to the point: how many petals does Joyce lose from her soul-flower whenever she eats a BLT? Is there a bacon-to-soul-flower-petals conversion chart somewhere on the internet?
Because the mosaic law was fulfilled and made obsolete by Jesus. Except for some reason Leviticus 18. People seem to forget this when they get to Leviticus 18. Leviticus 19:27 everyone remembers the situation there, but there’s this mysterious blackout that occurs during chapter 18. Darndest thing.
You know that remind me why I hate Luther, Bible should be read in it original lenguage (not the translation or the Vulgata Latina) with a careful eye. Today any nuts can read the bible and fund some nutty religion (WBC for example). There ought to be a minucious reading and not a general reading like the gnostics.
You’re right. It’s so much better if 90% of people can’t understand it and will never take the time to learn Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and thus have to rely on someone else to tell us what it means. That’ll totally solve the problem.
I’m pretty sure that at least 90% of Christians don’t read the bible for comprehension anyway. (Reading for memorization or for cherrypicking does not count as reading for comprehension, and neither does only reading along with the stuff your preachers cherrypick for you.) So no big difference there.
Though personally, I bet that people who read Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic are almost as capable as wildly misinterpreting the bible as anybody else – they’re just less inclined to because most of them are more scholarly. If laymen could do it, you’d see the same mess out of it.
Every interpretation is valid, misinterpretation can only happen when when you dont read. Not every interpretation is good, but most misinterpretations are bad. You can argue against an “scholar” but not against a fanboy, a troll or a fanatic.
This is utter nonsense – if every possible interpretation is valid then the book has no intrinsic meaning at all. At that point you might as well read an english translation or Moby Dick or the back of a soup can, because you just said that interpreting the original-language bible as a metaphor for the back of a soup can is a valid interpretation.
Suffice to say, if the book actually has enough meaning that that meaning can be obscured by being translated, then a vast percentage of possible interpretations are invalid. After all, any possible interpretation of a translation is obviously also a possible interpretation of the original – since the translated text itself is just a (literal) interpretation of the original text.
Given how illogical your position seems to be here, it sounds to me like you’re just trying to erect some sort of shoddy “people who haven’t bothered to learn aramaic aren’t allowed to argue with me” forcefield in an attempt to win arguments or something. Perhaps you’re very badly misstating your position?
People should not talk about what they dont know or dont understand, I bet the knowledge of most people comes from wikipedia. I dont trust them, of course the ones who whant to know can consult translations or critical work. My point is dont argue if you dont know, but everyone is invited to learn.
Wow, a lot of very serious responses to a post which was mostly just intended to make a pun about pork and porking.
If there was a serious point to my post (which is a very questionable proposition) it wasn’t about whether or not Christians should eat pork. I don’t care whether or not Christians eat pork. It’s totally irrelevant to me.
My point was that Joyce was trying to give Roz (a non-Christian) a guilt trip for not living according to Christian religious beliefs is as absurd as if Joe gave Joyce a hard time for not living according to Jewish religious beliefs.
Meh, dunno… I just looked it up, and I can’t help but to agree with the whole thing about not giving any of my children to be sacrificed to Molech. I mean, dude, that’d be just wrong.
Technically, the ban on “abominable” sexual practices is mentioned again, in Romans something something, and so exists outside Mosaic law. I’m not defending the belief, but it does have a basis in the New Testament.
Was referring to Joyce’s lack of acknowledgement of a pork ban, which I’m pretty sure is only mentioned in the mosaic law. Since I was on a bit of a tandem I also threw in a reference to the Christian segment of the anti-gay movement and their choice of quotations in support of their claims.
Respect… It doesnt exist. Someday there will be an Atheist Republican President and we all be happy. Hopely also Gay, the moto will be “Mind your own bussines”. Better if is a tough woman, they make the best republicans.
I wouldn’t say I like her, but I’m finding her much more tolerable here than her Shortpacked! counterpart. Perhaps because, in this universe, her sexual-liberation shenanigans aren’t sending recovering sex addicts into relapse.
I like this version of her too. She’s outspoken and sex-positive without the self-centredness of her SP! counterpart. Maybe we have yet to see them, but when this version promotes safe sex and the other one just fucks whoever, I’ve got high hopes for this one.
Darwinian logic, Joyce and her message are only a threat for the weak ones. If Joyce can harm anyone with her message then she is a Threat, if she is not a Threat the speach she uses is harmless. Is like saying, religion dont kill people, people kill people… with religion, but also guns.
Also assholes when dont represent any threat are pretty irrelevant. Not a thing to make a fuzz.
Joyce and her message successfully had most of the known world under its’ sway for a pretty significant chunk of history. It creates an atmosphere of hate that is far more harmful to the people who don’t subscribe to the people who do as evidenced by hate-crimes.
Assuming your premise is that you are somehow weak if you buy into her message, then it’s least harmful to the weak. If you’re weak then you just live according to it and don’t run into any trouble. It’s the masses of these so called weak people that form a threat to the rest of society.
Joyce is the only Joyce in her school, but everyone was a Joyce where she came from and she was considered the mildest and most well adjusted of her class. What do you think happens if someone strays from the path over there?
The other end of this, if I’m to assume you’re assigning those harmed by the actions of the believers as the weak ones, is even more flawed and blatantly offensive to all the many groups that have merely gotten caught in the crossfire of religious extremists.
See we agree. Just that I dont buy the politically correct, the historical truth is that since reinassence the power can control the situation. As you see I dont care if I am being offensive, you yourself want to erradicate some people too. Is very republican if you think about it
Dude, she savagely assaulted someone just two days ago for stepping out of line. Today she is actively engaged in disrupting a learning environment largely responsible for the degree to which our citizenry are competent in their fields. The mere presence of someone who had in the past violated her code was enough to have her reduced to a pure vehicle of rage and aggression akin to a mere violent animal for a moment. This isn’t just a matter of political correctness or history. How do you justify her behavior as being only a threat to the weak?
Maybe he thinks that the non-weak can fight back and beat her to a pulp instead? After all, being a (non-alien-abducted) girl, she’s probably only strong enough to injure weak people when she physically attacks them.
Well, even though they’re normal and natural, our sexual impulses can get us into a hell of a lot of trouble if they’re left totally unchecked. But I do agree that guilt and shame are not productive ways to go about checking ’em.
tHE jEWISH CONCEPT OF THE SOUL IS DIFFERENT TO HOW MANY cHRISTAIN GROUPS VEIW THEM.
IIRC, to the Jews’ the soul is ‘life energy’ that loses its form when it leaves the body after death, while Catholics and many other Christains believe that you are the soul and the human body is little more than a meat container for it.
Schrodinger’s god says God exist and doesnt exist till you die. So you can perfectly know God exist… also you know It doesnt. Is both A and B, just A and just B and neither of them.
Are you going to find me? Or I just did troll your mind?
You certainly seem to be trolling *something* around here.
Oh, and God doesn’t exist. I can be absolutely certain. Of course, I can be certain of this because I was taught that the word “God” means some sort of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent thingy that kills people while thinking that’s a good thing (notably Jesus, but numerous others throughout the bible too). This class of entity is logically self-contradictory for a variety of reasons and cannot possibly exist.
Of course, you might use the word differently. There are a variety of possible alternate definitions for “God” that are considerably less impossible. For example, you might call me “God”. In that case I’m quite certain that God exists. So it all comes down to your definitions, really.
Now I know I am way late in regards to the flower analogy. But I think it applies to men and women as saying that the more you have sex with different people, the less it means to you and then when you get married it’s very hard to give yourself over to your spouse, in a mutual exchange, fully. With mind, Body, and heart. Thus reduced to only having sex with your spouse not making love with them… Just my thoughts. And so I don’t get flak for being anti women, my name is from something a buddy used to say when I had good pieces of advice. My first initial is Z so he called me Zman.
As someone who holds to the belief in God…yet follows NO religion whatsoever…I find Joyce pitiful AND pitiable at the same time.
I do very much believe in sharing the peace, comfort & joy in my belief with others…but only if it’s asked for. And while I won’t lie & say I never judge others, but such volatile rage is saved for rapists, murderers, politicians (sorry, couldn’t help it!) and abusers.
Do I believe sex before marriage is wrong? Not anymore, but I feel it’s become entirely too cheap these days. I DO believe sex should be saved for a monogamous, long-term, LOVING relationship. It should be based in meaning, not just in brief physical enjoyment. It makes me sad that so many don’t believe that anymore, but I sure as Hell am not going to tell those who do so that they’re no good, damned, dirty, etc.
When Joyce realizes that religion=brainwashing, I really hope she hasn’t alienated everyone who cares about her…because she’ll need someone to help her as she figures out life all over again.
Oh, and I just noticed that Roz said “FOR GODS’ SAKE”, not “FOR GOD’S SAKE” – the placement of that apostrophe means that when she is calling upon plural gods at once, rather than the singular god those christian-types believe in. And only the readers will be aware of this! (Unless she pronounces it differently so that the characters around her can hear it too, which I suppose is possible.) This is awesome – especially if it’s a readers’ only bonus.
Or it’s just an error in quote placement, which would be, er, less awesome. So I’ll stick with my interpretation.
I’ve always heard a plural possessive pronounces with an elongated “s” sound. So god’s and gods are pronounced exactly the same, but gods’ would be “godsss”. This makes it easy to hear the difference.
I’m kind of torn over this. While on the one hand, Joyce is kind of a fruitcake, and Roz’s assertion that she’s fear-mongering is pretty bang on, I’m of the opinon that while how she got there sucks, she is kind of right.
Religious people, I think, have pretty admirable morals and standards-the only problem is they seem to want to impose them on other people instead of leading by example.
See, I think of the soul as a flower that grows as it feeds on shit. It takes all the darkness you throw at it and turns it into light and gets bigger and stronger for it. Though if you try and protect it from the world it withers.
Loading ...
Go Joe!
Don’t help Joe, it’ll come back to bite you. Though it is hilarious.
But will it come back to Joe you?
Every single time.
YES THEY SHOULD!!!!
G.I. Joe! Dun, dun, dun, da-dun!
G.I. Joe! Dun, dun, dun, da-dun!
Best suggestion ever Joe!
Someone should have made that suggestion during the crusades
I’ve got a delightful mental image now of hundreds of men having a massive hatefuck orgy in a desert backdrop.
I just saw Season of the Witch the other night. Thinking of Nicolas Cage involved in a hatefuck is not the image I needed.
I’ve never seen any of this Witch you speak of so I’ve used Nick Cage from Con Air for my mental picture instead.
Pretty much the same, I guess, except his hair is starting to gray and he was wearing armor.
I’d have to assume that he would take that off, first.
Good for you, the only movie I’ve seen with him in it is Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance…(by the way, I apologize for any mental scarring I may have caused by putting that image in your mind)
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all morning.
I’ve only been up half an hour, but still…
And I am once again reminded why I should not drink soda while reading these comments.
Joe speaks for the everyman.
Something tells me this is Joe’s advice for a lot of different situations.
Girl on girl hatesex FTW. Or something.
Yeah, but flowers grow back, Joyce!
If you water it and give it sunlight and fertilizer, yes it will.
Which is not what Joyce (and religious fundementalist in general) is doing.
Religious fundementalists are all about spreading ahem… ‘fertilizer’.
Saw that one coming a mile away. 😀
Well they are providing the fertilizer at least
*badum tish*
They also like keeping you in the dark, so even if they are lousy at growing flowers, they do make great mushrooms.
But not the magic mushrooms. 🙁
Just how big can the mushrooms grow?
…before it can sleep in the sand? 🙁
(sorry, they.)
And not the good kind mushrooms either.
They would disagree with you. Just playing devil’s (jesus’s?) advocate.
An Evangelical is jesus’s “advocate”.
Really? People who has the opposite opinion would disagree? That’s crazy, man.
Also, flowers are the sexual organs of a plant. Maybe she didn’t mean to go to plant sex, but guess what, she did.
Flowers don’t grow back if they are annuals.
Or if you got them from Walmart.
“You’d be down to the roots.” has been added to my street talk lingo.
Joe speaks for us all.
Not me. I’ll just ask them to kiss and make up.
“Thank God I’m an atheist!”
Am I the only one visualising epic hatefucking with Joyce and Roz right now?
In a word: no.
maybe not
Not but Joyce and Joe yes.
Ahaha, your gravatar suits that thought so perfectly.
Ah, religion…
Don’t get me started.
Your Roz Icon makes this comment hilarious.
This is not going to end well.
For whom?
Joyce, Roz and Dorothy.
You think they are all going to get into trouble?
At the very least they will drive each other to madness.
MADNESS??
THIS IS COLLEGE! *kick*
*gets kicked into the fountain in the middle of the quad*
WTF, mate? My books!
Sorry about that. Never know my own strength.
No their preconceived notions of how the world works will be shattered into a million pieces.
And then they are sacrificed to Cthulhu.
Gooooo Miskatonic!!!
You win the internets.
And my applause.
*stands and applauds*
Maybe we’ll get that fight Sal and Billie denied us by being reasonable!
You do know that everyone has only one virginity to give, right Joyce?
I got this sneaking suspicion that Joyce may still have feelings for Joe. Then again, I could be wrong.
One? I was told women had three orifices they could use for such purposes… You mean Joe lied to me?
Joyce’s definition of a soul reminds me of Harry Potter, just with less murdering for horcruxes and more sexing for petal-loss.
So premarital hanky-panky will turn you into Lord Voldemort huh? Interesting…
Roz is already Lord Voldemort.
Don’t you mean Lady Voldemort?
So she has already handled an “Elder’s wand” then?
I’d like to put my basilisk into her chamber of secrets
That is possibly the most disturbing euphemism I’ve ever heard.
but the greatest one none the less.
Just wait ’til you start thinking about the implications of the turned-to-stone thing.
*snrk*
ROFL!
Put your fire in her goblet?
Your prisoner in her Azkaban?
If there’s fire in your goblet consult a doctor.
Or stop eating spicy foods.
Or become a super hero/villain?
Pshaw, she’s already handled the Sorceror’s Bone…
I’d Ron her Hermine or Harry her Ginny I’d even Neville her Luna.
Id let her hufflepuff my Slytherin, just as long as she doesn’t give me hogwarts
You wanna put your ravenclaw in my griffindor? There’s not enough hogsmeade in the world to get me THAT drunk.
Panel 1 Joyce has amazing breasts.
They’re her Most Common God Given Superpower. 😀
I called them God’s Gift to Mankind. 🙂
The Chest Window! 😀
That is an example of Willis at his best. 😉
It seems I misspoke the first time. She has Amazi-breasts.
The Ruiner of Funs is here to tell you that that’s not great breasts, that’s just her shirt.
The Guy Who Loves Breasts is here to tell you that you’re 100% right.
We already knew that. 😐
A slight edit of Joyce’s assets
That’s not a slight edit. That’s a HUGE edit.;)
I believe in understatement.
FACEPALM!
That bad huh?
Roz seems to think so.
Is that metaphor something you heard firsthand, or one you made up for the strip?
I made up most of my metaphors and imagery maybe Willis do too.
Joe. Joyce. Dorothy. Walky. Roz!?!
Best. Class. Ever.
AND THEN, THERE WAS SLASHFIC.
Joyce no it isn’t, there are things in this world far worse than sex. There is famine, greed, gluttony, murder, torture, child abuse, violations of people’s Human Rights, slavery, disregard for human life, 1 in 3 women beat or coercied into sex or otherwise adused throughout the world, human trafficking, and a human being’s blind indifference to their fellow human beings.
Yet your only concerned with premartial sex! You are the worst kind of Christian and may the God have mercy on your soul.
Amen.
Worse, yes. Not bad at all, no — at least according to scripture.
Joyce is just focusing on the people she can reach; there’s no lesser value in working at the local level than at the global level. Would you attack someone for working in a soup kitchen instead of tackling hunger at the international level? Probably not; but personal sexuality is such a hot button issue for people, especially for many who don’t share Joyce’s beliefs on the matter and would rather the just shut up about it entirely.
I’ve got sewing thread, will that help?
What is more important feeding a starving child or shaming someone for engaging in premarital sex?
In Joyce’s defense, if there were a starving child in front of her right now, she’d probably be more worried about that than the present argument. But there’s not, and there’s just Joe and Roz in front of her.
It’d be as unfair to ask you why you’re spending time getting angry at things on the Internet rather than spending this time feeding starving people.
That actualy makes me feel a little better.
Becuase it is medium in which thoughts and idea are exchange across the global. It help trigger the Arab Spring. And I volunteer at a food pantry.
Everyone volunteers at the food pantry.
They have free food.
I’m curious, can you defend Roz’s crusade as easily? Unlike Joyce, Roz actually seems to think about nothing but this issue and how to force her perspective down other people’s throats. At least Joyce’s efforts to force her perspective down other people’s throats is a part-time thing.
Isn’t it such a nice change of pace to have two equally hatable people in the same comic for once?
Honestly, I know people are used to getting on Joyce’s case, but Roz is definitely the bad guy here. Joyce, when confronted with someone who told her she was an athiest, definitely did not start screaming in her face. The once situation in which she actually raised her voice at anyone for having a different opinion was a couple of pages ago, and she’s now explained that she just did it out of concern for Joe’s behalf. Roz is being a troll.
Being fair all Dot said was “I’m an atheist” and wasn’t trying to lecture anyone. Joyce couldn’t even handle the fact that someone didn’t believe in god. Joyce is now preaching in a classroom about the evils of sex. Again, Roz is sex-positive. She’s speaking out for what she fervently believes in, the same way Joyce is.
Why is one a troll and one not again?
Joyce had never known anyone who hadn’t been a believer before. She was shocked and speechless, but it did not stop her from later going back and apologizing to say that she did, in fact, accept her friend.
It’s less preaching, and more sharing an opinion. I’ve have conversations and debates on this topic, with friends, before and it’s started in ways similar to this situation.
If you started screaming out what Roz is, on a debate team, then you would be kicked off. If you said it on the internet, you’d be called a flamer. If you said it in a group of friends, you would be isolated. Her wordchoice is what I’m most concerned with, and it oversteps it’s boundaries. Instead of carefully explaining what she believes and why, (as Joyce does) Roz is just blatantly insulting. That is what makes the difference.
“ALL CAPS RAEG + a double handed point”
“What you pride yourself in is horrible + all my angry emotes >:(”
>Talk about him as if he’s not here and condemn his actions using the language and reasoning you would give to a small child.
Nope. Nothing blatantly insulting here. Debate teams would applaud it. Brings friends to you in droves. You’ll be real popular on the internet. All these things and more if you simply think “What would Joyce do” before opening your mouth.
lol, point taken. At least Joyce’s /motives/ are honest, right? haha
Still, I don’t mean to stick up for Joyce, but I do think there are others who deserve equal blame at times; blame that they don’t get because it’s all shoved on a single character. That’s all I worry about. I think it’s unfair to the stereotype she represents, when there are so many other (just as bad or worse, even if more quiet) stereotypes in this comic that get off scott free.
Joyce is just TOO easy to hate, sometimes, as a character, and I hope no one faults me for saying there have been times when I almost quit reading because it stopped being fun. That’s how I feel.
Yeah, this isn’t really comparable to the Dorothy atheist bit, since Dorothy wasn’t in the middle of lecturing someone on atheism.
Maybe it’s just because I agree with Roz that that IS just fearmongering garbage, but I can’t see how Roz is ‘the bad guy’ here. Roz, whether or not you agree, considers sex to be a freedom, one which is often repressed in Christian society, especially in women. Joyce is basically shitting all over that freedom. More to the point, she’s being extremely obnoxious about it. If somebody walked up to me and screamed ‘PREMARITAL HANKY-PANK’ in my face twice for no reason whatsoever, I think I might get so annoyed with them I may just deck them in the face for being irritating. That Joyce feels she can apply her moral authority openly and obnoxiously to anybody is not remotely a good thing– and yes, one can argue Roz is doing the same thing, but I think Joyce opened the can of worms by lecturing about how exercising the freedom of one’s body is ‘defiling’ oneself and then telling Roz she was basically going to Hell, and I personally feel that considering Joyce went off on it first, Roz is perfectly justified in replying.
This is gonna be interesting. I dunno if it’ll be open-minded vs intolerant, or intolerant vs. equally intolerant. We’ll see how it goes down, then.
Given that it’s Rox, it’s probably the latter.
Roz*
This is what I get for typing in the dark.
….and for never learning to type properly.
I’m pretty sure that Roz’s opening comment calling Joyce’s beliefs “superstitious, fear-mongering garbage” means that this is going to be two zealots on an intolerance-off.
Like most er, modern individuals, I agree with Roz. But I’ve never liked Roz, and I like Joyce a whole lot. I’m torn here!
Just cause she has a point, doesn’t mean you have to like her. I’m the same way. I don’t like Roz, or her reaction here, but I won’t deny I understand her annoyance at Joyce’s bible thumping.
Your Preaching to chior.
….So to speak.
Well, since Roz probably figures herself a modern daughter of the enlightenment, only one of them is being internally consistent. Joyce any day. I’ll take the ignorant over they hypocritical, thank you very much.
I think you mean you’ll take the ignorant over the person you just framed as hypocritical based on an assumption you just made.
Yeah, Joyce, leave Joe’s soul alone. Its his life, and he an adult… of sorts… Its not her business to force her beliefs on other people. By behaving the she’s is, she looks like the bad guy because she’s the one who acting like a judgmental twit. It’s great she have faith, but I don’t like how she forces it on others.
As for Roz, while I don’t necessarily disagree with her, I do disagree with how she reacted. Screaming at Joyce and calling her beliefs garbage is no better than Joyce telling Joe how he’s going to hell for having sex.
Think of it this way it is between Joe and God and no one else.
Why? (I can think of two answers to this question that justify that stance, and that aren’t self-contradictory, but both involve some pretty serious undermining of social prinicples I think are important, so I’m curious.)
Well, first off because Joyce has no say in how Joe chooses to live his life or what he does with his body.
She’s not concerned about the health dangers of STDs, or possibility of pregnancy, nor stigma of being known for being a man-slut.
Her driving concern or more appropriately “judgement” is her religious view points. There may also be some selfishness in there as that she’s pissed he went and had sex after their failed date.
I get the feeling Roz has dealt with some crap in the past that has shaped her current personality/beliefs, given her dislike of ableist language and of referring to God exclusively as male. Her over-the-top response to Joyce seems typical of one who’s had a lot of bad experiences with fundamentalist Christians.
Yeah, I agree. But I still don’t like people who respond like that, because they come off as as much a zealot as the Christian fundamentalist.
Oh, I agree. Every time I read something Richard Dawkins has written I want to punch him through my computer screen. 😛
What is the proper way for someone to respond to others preaching things that are fundamentally abhorrent to them? This smacks of tone argument.
Well, when people have deeply held beliefs such as Joyce’s, and those beliefs are attacked in an antagonistic fashion, as Roz is doing, it’s been my experience that the person being attacked will dig in and go on the defensive, and from there it just degrades into shouting.
Insulting someone’s beliefs isn’t constructive, it just makes the person fire back with equal fervor and makes the person doing the insulting look like an immature, ignorant ass.
Kind of describing what we’re seeing in panel three. Two way street that business. Another good reason to have a talk like this with Joe in private instead of out in the open where anyone you’re offending can join in.
I know that Joyce thinks she’s just talking common sense. Probably thinks the only reason this even needs to be explained is that Dorothy is an Athiest. Still, go shouting off like that about sexual purity and odd were someone in the room was gonna be an equally strong proponent of sexual freedom and then here we are. Shame Joyce didn’t know that. Shame Roz couldn’t sit this one out instead of throwing oil into the fire. It’s college. Everyone is learning.
Heh. Yeah. Roz reminds me (uncomfortably) of myself in my first couple years of college. I’ve grown up a lot since then.
Please Joe, derail this before it becomes two Straw(wo)men fighting against each other. Or, at the very least, sell some tickets first.
he already has a sex video out, a catfight video can only help his YouTube ratings
Eh. I’m never sure if you’re using Joyce’s – and other characters – religious nature as a strawman, David.
Could be a cultural (Australian vs American) thing, could be because I’m on the Christian side of the fence. But in my experience Christians (not the fundementalist caricatures you see protesting funerals) are generally very accepting and courteous people. They’re also often happier and more focused in their life, which I think is more to do with stricter discipline in their lifestyle than the actual religious side. That’s not to say we’re uptight, either; last week our bible-study home group split a carton of beer between six of us while we read the gospel.
The discussion I’ve had with most local Christians regarding sex before marriage is never focused around the ‘corruption of your soul’ thing. Any reference to the gospel is more, ‘if you believe in God, and God has asked you not to do something, it’s a bit of a dick move to go ahead and do it anyway – even without considering that Jesus sacrificed himself to give you a green card to forgiveness and rejecting that is an even bigger dick move’. Outside of that, it’s all about the practical elements: STDs, unwanted pregnancy and the fact that if you’ve had multiple sexual partners and gotten away without any physical consequence, it’s always going to effect your next relationship in some way.
Safe sex is always recommended, of course, but the real surefire way to avoid any negative effects is to abstain until marriage. It makes it that much more special and, theoretically, once you’ve reached that stage of a relationship you’re gonna be with that person for the rest of your life. Monogomy helps prevent the spread of STDs – that’s science.
Anyway, just my several hundred cents. Fully prepared to be flamed like crazy for not going ‘hahha, take that Joyce! Christians are completely wrong and immoral because of that small portion of the world wide community which makes everyone else look bad! Which is nothing like Islamic extremists making the moderate majority look bad!’
Joyce’s beliefs are entirely based on my own when I was her age. The flower analogy she tells Joe about is something I was personally taught. …I… I don’t think my life is a strawman…
Another iteration of the meme:
From here: http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Father-Daughter-Purity-Balls-to-Promote-Abstinence-Chastity-Pledges/6#ixzz1VvAGxWje
Really?
Joyce reads very true to me, having known a bunch of people like that in RL. Some I was good friends with (probably because they got more open-minded with every year and I knew how not to be a dick about being an atheist), so she gives me nostalgia.
The fact she was based off you is probably the other reason she seems realistic.
That flower analogy is utterly disgusting and degrading to women. Yuck. Like a woman’s life and virginity is just some sort of ‘prize’ and somehow a girl who has relationships and experience is worth less than one who doesn’t or an utter disappointment.
At least the purity balls are generally viewed as creepy as all hell in normal circles (even by some christians) but then they probably (pathetically) think they’re being ~persecuted~ by the wider world like most idiots would.
Now, wait, I _can_ see what you’re seeing here, but I think it’s probably a coincidence A) the “one petal each time” bit wouldn’t apply if it was a virginity thing B) it wouldn’t apply to Joe if it were something that applied specifically to women.
I was more referring to the quote Willis got above. Not really the comic. It was in full and seemed to mainly refer to women (and any relationship at all really).
I don’t know about the purity balls or anything, but it’s equal ground for both men and women as far as losing virginity goes. So, I don’t know where you’re getting the “it’s degrading to women” (If you’re refering to something in the link, than I apologize, I did not read that) Also, my understanding of the virginity thing as far as being Christian goes is like this: It’s like any other sin. In other words, if it happens, yes, it’s bad, but it can be forgiven, and no Christian friend of mine would ever view someone as “lesser” for having lost their virginity before marriage.
It was referring to the purity balls yes. (Where Willis got the quote originally from).
Purity balls involve fathers and daughters from what I hear. And are utterly creepy. Never heard of sons getting that type of thing at all.
You’re attacking people’s personal beliefs, which do no harm to others,break no laws and affects only their own lifestyles.
How is that any different from attacking, say, the homosexual community?
I’m not saying I’m a fan of purity balls, or the midwest american interpretation of Christianity in general, but I do believe in leaving people alone when they’re doing no harm to others. Tolerance, we call it.
Ever watchd something like Jersey Shore?
Those people act like women are objects. Their entire objective is to get girls into bed. Bonus points if you take her v-card! Virginity is, for so many, something to be discarded as quickly as possible and to be abhorred if one still possesses it. In the modern social structure of dating in general the woman’s vagina is very much the goalpost. Guys will say anything to get to that point as quickly as possible, and then often discard the woman once they have what they want.
That sounds a lot more degrading than, for instance, honouring and protecting a woman, only committing to something as powerful and emotional as sex once you’ve pledged your lives to eachother.
You’re confusing scumbags for mere non-abstinent individuals. Scum is scum. The scumbags you describe were hardly gonna be the men of honor protecting their loved one you describe even if they’d been abstinent.
I loved that part of church. Paint it like there’s only the two extremes. You abandon god and suddenly you’re an unstoppable vehicle of sinful conquest. The good ol’ Faith Heel turn.
Some people can actually tell right from wrong quite independent of such matters. Some people have a fucked up sense of right and wrong on both sides of the fence.
I was just pointing out the incongruity of declaring the flower analogy to be ‘degrading to women’ with the second post. It’s difficult to follow this thread when the comments all start to stack up the way they have.
Again, generalisations. I understand that not everyone who doesn’t practice abstinence is the equivilent of those guys who just want to get into a girl’s pants. I’m specifically, with that second post, arguing against assertion that thinking abstinence is a postive attribute is not as degrading to women as alternative schools of thought.
And I’m saying you’re comparing two extreme schools of thought both of which are quite degrading. This isn’t a dick measuring competition here. There’s more than enough degradation to go around.
“We’re better than the cast of Jersey Shore” is not a stellar endorsement of the school of thought. The cast of the Jersey Shore is better than 18th century Europe, doesn’t make them any better.
If the presence of a worse manner of scum is the only defense of your actions then you’re probably not doing anything praiseworthy.
The flower analogy is only degrading to women in certain circumstances and contexts. It really depends on the person telling it. It doesn’t have to be specifically misogynistic. It’s dependent on both the person who told the story and the person who heard it. If the person telling the flower analogy doesn’t make it gender specific, that’s hardly misogynistic. If the person hears the analogy and mentally applies the lesson equally between the sexes, that’s also not misogynistic. The way Joyce told the flower analogy in my comic strip is not, I believe, misogynistic.
But the flower analogy is commonly used that way, no mistake. Often, “boys will be boys,” while girls will be “ruined.” It’s a double standard that exists both inside and outside of religion.
And the flower analogy can still be, regardless of misogyny, pretty degrading.
ScotchCarb, a close friend of mine abstained until marriage, only to find out that he and his petal-fresh bride had no sexual chemistry whatsoever. This wrecked their relationship to the point that it lead to eventual divorce. How is that desirable to any God with half an ounce of love for His children?
Personally, I’ve never fantasized about being my wife’s “first man”, but I’ll go with a smile if she’s my last woman ever.
Don’t know about Scotch’s case specifically, but I was always told that if you both love eachother and take enough time to learn eachother’s needs you’ll figure it out eventually.
Is that blatantly false? It sounds true to me, but if I’m being frank I really wouldn’t know.
I can imagine pretty easily cases where it wouldn’t work (for example, it’s possible to be asexual without being aromantic). Dunno about how commonly that could happen, though.
Anyone who has atypical tastes in sex could result in a sexually flat relationship. The same is true if one or both partners have self-esteem hangups or buried issues.
Well that certainly makes it sound as if the claim were overly idealistic.
Sorry to hear that about your friend, dude. Like I said, I speak very generally when talking about this stuff because I’m aware that it isn’t necessarily the best course for everyone. It doesn’t make it a bad course, though.
You know, I think I just put my finger on *why* I disagree with the abstinence-until-marriage thing as a general policy (i.e., Joyce’s opinion that *everyone* *must* be abstinent until marriage, as opposed to my friend Emmy’s choice that *she* would be abstinent until marriage.) This actually seems fairly amusing to me, for some reason.
Allow me to quote a hymn to you from the religion I grew up in: “Love is something if you give it away, you end up having more. For it’s just like a magic penny, hold it tight and you won’t have any; lend it, spend it and you’ll have so many they roll all over the floor.”
Hey man, I didn’t mean to jump down your throat or anything. I was just concerned with the portrayal of a belief system that I, and a lot of others, hold very dear.
I should probably clarify: in terms of Joyce pushing her beliefs on other people, I think that’s wrong. Religious belief is a very personell journey in which the individual needs to make their own peace with God; you can definitely reach out to people who are asking for help, and do good works in God’s name in order to demonstrate His love, but haranguing people into following the Gospel is just as likely to drive them away as it is to ensnare them – and I say ‘ensnare’ with all the negative connotations that it provides.
For everyone else arguing against my points, I used the term ‘generall speaking’ quite a lot. That’s because everyone’s mileage will vary by huge degrees; I just think it is equally small minded and bigoted to dismiss the Christian way of life as WRONG without understanding it, or recognizing that for many people it is exactly the right thing.
I’m probably being overly sensitive, but this is kind of an age where being a Christian paints a big target on your back. There’s a lot of assumptions because of a crazy minority and a general feel that the normal behaviour for a Christian is this wild-eyed happy-clappy caricature. It isn’t a nice feeling when one of your child’s friends’ parents stops letting the friend come over to play when they learn that Dad is a member of the Church. And hearing the same uninformed argument from rebellious adolescants when I mention my beliefs gets pretty tiresome.
Lol. Yeah. The protestants have it sooo bad.
But if I’m gonna defend Joyce, the comic takes place in the bible belt. She’s surrounded by several thousand Christian Peers who aren’t visibly so because they’re sane, well adjusted people capable of carrying a conversation about a subject other than God when he’s not what’s being talked about right now and who’s beliefs aren’t so extreme they are alienated from the predominately Christian community. It’s all about context. Place Joyce in a group of fifty sane atheists and you could be construed as saying something about Christianity. Place Joyce among several thousand perfectly normal people who happen to be Christian and there’s really no reason to take offense even if you’re the type to do so.
There’s more than one way to get an STD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management
In 2002 there were 834,555 chlamydia infections reported.
There were 6,316,000 car accidents, however, and 2.9 million injuries from those car accidents.
Man, nobody ever preaches about not driving! …though if they did, that’d be pretty awesome.
Ever seen a commercial telling you to buckle up & drive safe?
This argument has gotten silly. Feel free to tell all your friends about how you pwned that crazy, unreasonable christian.
That’s the point he made. They tell you to drive safe, not abstain from vehicular transport.
I’ve also seen commercials telling me to wear protection! I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that there are things way more risky than sex that we do every single day of our lives, and those things aren’t demonized for some reason. If you want to address that, fine. If you don’t, also fine. But don’t pretend like me asking questions and engaging you is persecution.
I feel like the ideas and values which I strongly believe in are often demonized in your comics. That’s my issue, here.
I do agree that Joyce’s behaviour in trying to convert everyone to her belief system is the wrong thing to do. But that flies both ways; it’s hardly a lesson in understanding and tolerance if one party is proven ‘wrong’ and is forced to re-structure their entire faith system.
At the end of the day there’s a little red book written by the guy who I believe created me which tells me how I should be living certain aspects of my life. It’s helped me a lot. In the same vein I don’t like seeing moral stories where the dumb old christian is proven wrong and repents from their wicked ways, which I’m just sort of assuming is what is gonna happen to Joyce. Maybe I’m wrong.
And that is not science.
My church pretty explicitly laid out nonmarrital sex to be a very grave sin.
Spencer W. Kimball:
“Sex without marriage, for all people, young or older, is an abomination to the Lord, and it is most unfortunate that many people have blinded their eyes to these great truths.”
Everyone loved that quotation.
Excerpt from pne of the general Conferences I attended growing up.
“Question: Why is the law of chastity so important? Why is sex before marriage wrong?
Answer: [skipping ahead]
However, those intimate acts are forbidden by the Lord outside the enduring commitment of marriage because they undermine His purposes. Within the sacred covenant of marriage, such relationships are according to His plan. When experienced any other way, they are against His will. They cause serious emotional and spiritual harm. Even though participants do not realize that is happening now, they will later. Sexual immorality creates a barrier to the influence of the Holy Spirit with all its uplifting, enlightening, and empowering capabilities. It causes powerful physical and emotional stimulation. In time that creates an unquenchable appetite that drives the offender to ever more serious sin. It engenders selfishness and can produce aggressive acts such as brutality, abortion, sexual abuse, and violent crime. [cutting out the homophobia]
Sexual transgression would defile the priesthood you now hold, sap your spiritual strength, undermine your faith in Jesus Christ, and frustrate your ability to serve Him. Consistent, willing obedience increases your confidence and ability. It produces character that allows you to face difficult challenges and overcome them. It qualifies you to receive inspiration and power from the Lord.”
I spent a lot of time studying this particular speech from who was then the current leader of the church.
“And while I congratulate you on your strength to refrain from the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs, none of which will do you any good and all of which will do you harm, I warn you of another insidious and growing evil. This is the seductive lure of immorality. I am going to speak plainly. We hear much these days of teenage sexual misbehavior. There is too much of it among our own youth.
Any boy who indulges in illegitimate sexual activity, as we define that in the doctrines and standards of this Church—and I think no one misunderstands what I mean when I say that—does himself irreparable damage and robs her with whom he is involved of that which can never be restored. There is nothing clever about this kind of so-called conquest. It carries with it no laurels, no victories, no enduring satisfaction. It brings only shame, sorrow, and regret. He who so indulges cheats himself and robs her. In robbing her, he affronts her Father in Heaven, for she is a daughter of God.”
As a whole it was portrayed as more than just a bit of a dick move. I can’t pretend to know Dave’s intentions, but this all seems pretty well within the realms of believability. I don’t really see a strawman so much as the majority of my peer circle even to this day.
Oops, guess Dave already tackled that.
Though I disagree with the overall intent of gangler’s above quotes, there are a couple points in particular I’d like to pick at.
First point:
“However, those intimate acts are forbidden by the Lord outside the enduring commitment of marriage because they undermine His purposes. Within the sacred covenant of marriage, such relationships are according to His plan. When experienced any other way, they are against His will.”
So, all relationships within the “sacred covenant of marriage” are according to God’s plan, and all non-marital relationships are not? Why? There are plenty of marriages out there that people rush into and find themselves to be extremely unhappy, ultimately to divorce, or worse, spend the rest of their life in a bad relationship. Conversely, there are plenty of people who spend their lives together happily without ever marrying, either because it isn’t allowed (i.e. homosexuality) or because they simply don’t feel they need to.
Even if you assume that some unhappy relationships are part of God’s plan (God putting us through hard times so we learn from the experience, etc.) and vice versa… What’s so special about a priest saying a few words over the couple that it automatically earns God’s seal of approval, and furthermore is the only way to do so?
Second point:
“Any boy who indulges in illegitimate sexual activity, as we define that in the doctrines and standards of this Church—and I think no one misunderstands what I mean when I say that—does himself irreparable damage and robs her with whom he is involved of that which can never be restored. There is nothing clever about this kind of so-called conquest. It carries with it no laurels, no victories, no enduring satisfaction. It brings only shame, sorrow, and regret. He who so indulges cheats himself and robs her. In robbing her, he affronts her Father in Heaven, for she is a daughter of God.”
Why is it the man that carries the responsibility and sin of choosing to have sex? And why is it only the woman who is “irreparably damaged”? Though it’s certainly not always true, much of the time the man and the woman both choose to have sex and share equal responsibility for the decision. Why is the man the defiler, and the woman the victim? I’d like to think we’ve progressed beyond traditional gender roles a bit more than that.
Personal thoughts:
While I agree that teenage sex in general is a bad idea due to lack of emotional maturity, and careless sex is an easy way to get hurt emotionally or saddled with an unwanted pregnancy or STD, I have no problem with premarital sex in a long-term relationship when both partners care for and trust each other, and in fact think it’s a good idea. Compatibility with your partner is a complex issue, and sexual compatibility is one aspect of that. I think it’s best to explore how the two of you fit together (if you’ll pardon the double entendre) in as many ways as possible before marriage to be sure you’re marrying someone you can spend the rest of your life with, instead of waiting and running into trouble later like gueibor’s friend did.
Addendum: Regardless of how we feel on the sex debate though, I think we can all agree that Joyce, Roz, and Joe are all being dicks here.
Prefacing this with the fact that I don’t share these beliefs, they are merely what I was taught until I could move out.
1) Gods plan is all about the family unit. It begins and ends there. Keeping in mind that this is a religion that marries for time and all eternity rather than till death do you part. A relationship lacking the marriage vows is not eternal. Merely a passing fling during your earthy existence. Not a path to lasting happiness, leaving you alone and lacking in family in the afterlife as you pay for your sins. As a side note I actually do think that the church has a pretty cool view on the notion of paying for sins, but that’s another matter entirely.
Basically the equivalent to religions that require a baptism ceremony to get into heaven. You need the marriage ceremony to get the best afterlife.
2) If you pay attention you’ll notice that the man was actually irreparably damaged in that quote as well. Think of it as a severe spiritual injury leaving you spiritually handicapped. That address was made specifically to the young men of the church. There were no women in the room. They were attending some other conference. So that’s why its’ worded that way.
Obviously I’m not endorsing any of this. Just using a couple quotes from my youth as an example of how Joyce’s views on these things aren’t necessarily outrageous straw-man levels. In many places its’ pretty par for the course.
And yeah. Dicks all around^^
True.Incredibly cheesy and convoluted,but true
Maybe… if Joyce wasn’t one of the heroes.
Hey, that’s really awesome that you’re happier, more focused, more disciplined, and more capable of having meaningful relationships than the rest of us. Congratulations! Also, I’m sorry Christians are so persecuted by the filthy heathens. That’s really terrible for you guys. You have it so rough. 🙁
Speaking of a trend is not speaking of specifics. Saying that people who make a place for religion in their lives tend to be happier and more focused is an observation, not a rule by which we must abide–a lot like saying that obese people are more likely to get cancer. Are there fat people who don’t get cancer? Sure! Are there skinny people who do? Yup, sure are. But your odds go up if you’re obese.
ScotchCarb was making an observation about people he had seen–and unfortunately, this is a trend I’ve seen as well, if you’re talking about people in general with a spiritual life, and not just Christians. As someone who values the scientific method, I’m forced to take his observation into account, rather than rejecting it to suit my own worldview.
We have a lot of Christians like Joyce here in the US. They’re the driving force fighting for public school sex education to teach only abstinence and not mention any form of artificial birth control.
I’ve heard of an exercise done in abstinence-only sex ed programs that’s similar to Joyce’s flower analogy – have all the kids handle an unwrapped piece of candy and ask if anyone wants to eat it afterwards. Because having sex with someone you don’t intend to marry is totally like letting the nose-picker in the back of the class handle candy you plan to give to someone you love!
…I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m rooting for Roz in this one. I have no doubt she’ll go overboard and belittle everything Joyce believes in, but at this point my annoyance at Joyce is making me wonder if she NEEDS that.
No. No one ever needs that. Belittling a person’s beliefs will never help, all it will do is force that person to retreat back into them, strengthen those beliefs, and give the person a persecution complex.
And that’s not even getting into how goddamn rude it is to belittle someone’s beliefs. For all Joyce’s faults, she has not yet said “Your beliefs are garbage” to anyone.
It was pretty heavily implied when she and Joe had the sex talk. She might not have said the words “Your beliefs are garbage”, but she got the message across loud and clear.
I’d need to go back to the story about her date with Joe but I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the person who thought it necessary to convert a potential husband from Judaism.
I like where the part about superstitious garbage was preceded by “For God’s sake”.
I’m not putting words (or anything else) in Roz’s mouth as far as her beliefs, but if she turns out not to believe in God, wouldn’t that be roughly equivalent to her dislike of enablist language?
No, no, no. Read more carefully.
“For gods’ sake”
The apostrophe after the “s” means that she is referring to the sake of multiple gods.
Oh man. Just imagine what’ll happen if Joyce refers to God as a “Him!”
I just noticed this. Fuck yes.
Is it hypocritical for her to invoke God when expressing her frustration with Joyce? Not really. As a minor point, she might have a God, but not Joyce’s somewhat restrictive, uptight God. More importantly, “for God’s sake” is one of those things, like “god dammit,” that has become such common parlance that faith in one or more gods is not necessary for a person to use those phrases. I am an apatheist and I say “god dammit” when I stub a toe because, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, it’s much simpler than saying “Curse you, random fluctuations of the space-time continuum!”
Well there’s also the fact that she personally objects to god being referred to as exclusively male. That’s not necessarily something an areligious person wouldn’t care about but it makes it more likely that she believes in something.
all i can say is fucking joe…
No one is at the moment, but if you come back later…
He can fit you in.
With his penis.
That is his general plan of action, yes.
Joyce that doesn’t even work by your own Dang religion! Jesus can always forgive, that’s kinda his whole deal. By putting up some kind of barrier of sin that Jesus can’t cross, you’re actually sacrilegiously doubting his divine powers. So yeah, dumb even for a fundie here.
You can be forgiven, but healing your immortal soul is another matter entirely. Sin leaves you spiritually weak, damages your faith, and impairs your ability to see Gods’ divine love.
Or you know, that’s how the story goes.
Yes, Jesus can always forgive, but Christianity tends to look at repeated and unrepentant sin as a rejection of that forgiveness. So it doesn’t matter if Jesus’ magic fertilizer can put those petals back if you’re going to tell him to frak off because you don’t want it.
Divine mercy is very much dependent on repentance. Joe is clearly unrepentant.
He can repent right at the end of his life and that totally counts. That’s a bedrock principle of Christianity… which is also super easy to game the system with, but hey infinite patience means he doesn’t mind.
Leave it to Joe to say the worst possible thing to two women who are arguing 😛
If it works just one time in every twenty thousand then it’s the best thing 😉
Two things: 1) Thank you Roz for your input in panel 4; we need more of it!
2) Joyce’s shirt in panel 1 could be mistaken for a rather tanned (and impressive) cleavage.
Why? It’s pretty much the same judgmental intolerance that Joyce is spouting.
Oh…. That one is the one that *you* believe in, and that makes it okay.
There is a fundamental moral difference between hitting and hitting back. Roz is doing the latter and therefore is (so far, at least) in the morally superior position.
Unless she puts at least as much pressure on Joyce to start having sex as Joyce is putting on others to stop, she’ll keep that (relative) moral high ground, too.
Gandhi and MLK would disagree with you about the moral high ground of hitting back. It takes two to fight, and Roz could have handled Joyce in a completely different way, such as asking her to back off since Joe didn’t share her beliefs (without directly attacking her) or by simply ignoring her.
Instead, she came out swinging in a nasty way. If you want to use the punch analogy, Roz hit below the belt in someone else’s fight.
Not so. Joyce’s outburst is based on superstition. Roz’s outburst is based on the rejection of superstition. Whereas Joyce is fueled by belief (or “faith”), Roz is fueled by reason. So Roz is more right–it’s not just some arbitrary opinion she (or I, or Azukar) happen to “believe” in.
Of course, I may be going out ona limb here by putting a lot of my own reasoning into Roz’s reaction, but I think I understand how she thinks. Whereas I have Dorothy coined as a hardcore Democrat, I would be thrilled if Roz turns out to be libertarian.
But she isn’t appealing to any sort of logic. She’s just calling Joyce’s beliefs crap. Roz is acting out of (perfectly justified) anger.
What you call “reason” is just a form of faith itself. There’s no objective evidence for or against the existence of God — only strong personal opinion based on subjective experience.
And?
Sounds like the Celestial Teapot Concept.
That’s EXACTLY what this is.
The one making the claim to the positive has the burden of proof, until something is proven it does not exist. That’s how it works, no strong oppinion nonsense, just how it works.
It takes zero faith to know unicorns don’t exist despite no evidence disproving them. It does however take faith to believe in soemthing without evidence.
Negative statements carry just as much of a burden of proof as any other claim of truth. To say otherwise is to say that someone claiming Barack Obama exists has an inherently larger burden of proof than someone saying that he doesn’t exist.
Claiming that saying “God doesn’t exist” carries less of a burden of proof than “God does exist” is nothing but a dodge for intellectually lazy. Both ultimately lie in the land of scientifically unprovable conjecture, and one unprovable claim is not superior to the other merely by slipping “not” in there.
Who cares if folks can prove God exists or not? The actually important thing is that since nobody can prove he exists or doesn’t exist, that makes him functionally irrelevant to basically everything. He may as well not exist, since he is not verifiable. He matters as much as the invisible, intangible raccoon that I claim sits on my lap.
I think that’s the thing that gets overlooked when these burden of proof arguments come up. If I can’t test for it, why should I care whether it technically exists or not? Burden of proof is a red herring.
It’s a misunderstanding of the meaning of burden of proof, basically. It does not mean that if there is a yes or no answer then only yes has to prove itself. It means the burden of showing something to be provable at all. Where apologists cheat is saying that if you do not agree with them, then you are making a positive claim about the unknowable (the unknowable is X rather than Y) rather than the case being you complaining about the unknowability of the case they are making in general. What astounds me is how many “agnostics” buy into this idea, and choose fence-sitting out of fear of making a “positive” claim.
It doesn’t. Not really. It just gets on my nerves when people claim atheism isn’t a matter of faith or that simply choosing not to believe is an act of logic.
Logic is what you’re saying. That without evidence, there’s no reasons to care. Saying, “I don’t know,” is logic. Saying, “I don’t care / think its relevant,” is too. Saying, “I know for certain that there is no God, and it’s solely on you to prove otherwise,” isn’t logic. It’s just fundamentalism, in all its sneering glory.
Not that I think faith is a bad thing. I just don’t care for people who put themselves on a pedestal of Logic and Truth and sneer at people who think otherwise when all they have is opinion.
No, Valdrax, it is always positive claims that carry the burden of proof, since negative claims by definition *cannot* be proven.
To take your example, person A can claim that Barack Obama exists whereas person B can claim that he does not. The burden of proof lies on A, but since she can prove Obama’s existance quite easily, B has then been proven to be *wrong* and should get learn from this or at least stop spouting nonsense.
That’s just nonsense. Any statement of truth requires proof, *if you want to claim it is logically supported.* Otherwise it’s just opinion, assumption, and faith. (Not that I have a problem with it being that; I just have a problem with people claiming it isn’t.)
Also, saying that there’s less burden on “God doesn’t exist” just because it can’t be proven is also kind of a funny statement since it implies that “God exists” is in a different boat.
Criteria of truth still exist, whether you like them or not. The claim “all opinions are equal” is a false one. All arguments are not equal – some are a lot more robust, self-consistent, and supported by evidence. Defending “faith” on the basis that you need faith for everything is like defending bulimia on the basis that everyone has to eat.
I would argue that Roz is actually being worse here. Joyce is a bit extreme, yes, but you do not call someone’s beliefs “superstitious garbage” to their face, for several reasons. It doesn’t help, it makes you look every bit as close-minded, it leaves no room for debate, and it’s just plain rude.
Once someone walks into the classroom and just starts throwing out decibels like they were pez without even making coherent sentences the notions of debate, politeness, and general civility got thrown out the window.
Maybe you’d look at Joyce and think “I need to treat her as if her beliefs are valid. I’m sure we can talk this out”, but truthfully reasoning with someone like this would be the last thing on my mind and I don’t think I’m a bad person for it.
Joyce however, while her heart is kind of in the right place is just being ridiculous here. I know, I know, she’s adjusting. I sympathize with her a lot. I love her character. Truth be told I haven’t exactly been sold on Roz yet, but Roz’s behavior here seems appropriate for the situation. Joyce’s patently does not.
You wanna confront the guy on his lifestyle, at the very least have the courtesy to do so in normal speaking volume, with your wits about you, during some one on one time. Shouting incoherent nonsense at the man in a blatantly antagonistic fashion in front of the whole class is not the way you go about things.
Point of interest. I would just love to know if that’s how she was taught. The shouting and antagonism and public shaming, are those the tools that were used to instil a love of Christ in her?
It’s nice that after our previous to-ing and fro-ing that we can totally agree on what you’ve just said today. 😀
They should.
What kind of flower is the soul here? A daisy or one of those big floofy ones with like eight billion petals?
Joe’s probably taken enough flowers to have a flippin’ spiritual bouquet!
David, I’m real curious now – what sort of religious tradition does Joyce (and yourself) come from? What is the definition of “soul” behind the analogy?
I was raised fundamentalist (Protestant) Christian, of the “nondenominational” variety. Most of my friends were homeschooled, though I was not. My mom considered it a few times, but I was enough of a social pariah already.
I’d explain what Joyce meant by soul, but I’d explain too much about Joyce’s thought process and specific biases and possibly give too much away. 🙂 I’d rather spell them out slowly in the comic.
Too ambitious a request, Joe. Settle with a cat fight for now.
Yes! Hate makeouts! Hate makeouts for all!
But seriousface for a minute here…
…It’s very true that Joyce is butting in on an issue that she’s got no business in, and proselytizing the tenets of your faith where its not welcome is a pretty big no-no. That said, I find it hard to be genuinely mad at her in this situation. Annoyed and exasperated, sure, but not really mad. She’s got good intentions in this, and when you get down to it, she’s a sweet girl who I think really believes that she can save people doing things like this. Admittedly, her previous experiences with Joe likely had some influence on her initial outburst, but I don’t doubt that she at least means well here.
Of course, cue the statement on Satan’s choice in pavement, and Joyce is definitely stepping outta line in this instance. I’m not debating that. I just can’t really get outright mad at her for it. -shrug-
I’m still apprehensive about Roz. Her outburst here is pretty justified in that Joyce pulled a similar one in what was an apparently full class leaving her open to a valid summation of her litany from an opposing viewpoit… But something about her and whatever her message/purpose/crusade/thingamabopper may by just rubs me the wrong way. -yetanothershrug-
There’s only so much a person can take! And, yeah, Roz gives off that creepy Xanatos Gambit radiation like no one’s business, but I’d put 20 bucks on her in a catfight or a debate.
That being said, BRING IT ON!
I can’t believe no one added “…with my penis” to Joe’s suggestion yet.
“With his stamen.”
Okay people, it’s time to tune in for another round of Hollywood Atheism.
But Dorothy will provide the more reasonable position and view on atheism?
Maybe?
I mean Joyce and her are possible friends and all. I can’t see her agreeing with Joyce’s viewpoints or the way Roz is going about presenting hers.
Dorothy for referee?
(Then again she DID judge Roz so it’s not like she’s entirely unbiased, but view people aren’t biased in some form based on their own experiences/how they were raised etc. after all, it’s why fandom is sometimes so… interesting sometimes too even without putting in religion or politics in it. Reflecting your own deep desires and viewpoints when two characters argue and all I guess sometimes for some fans.)
*but few (not view)
I actually have to agree with Joyce on this one. Though I do have a different definition of marriage than most.
This is… strange. I guess it’s because I’m an ex-christian but I can sort of relate to both Joyce and Roz here- granted I was pretty angry deep down after I left (the whole feeling you’re being lied to and all), But realising EVERYONE who ‘lied’ to you actually believed the lie presents an interesting concundrum-and as such means nowadays I’m more or less ‘leave them alone unless they impinge on other peoples rights or try to dictate how science or logic really works’.
Joyce butted in here on something which wasn’t her business- though Roz’s reaction is immature all the same. I guess it depends on her past at how understandable it is. I mean when you feel a religion not your own is dictating or trying to dictate your whole entire life and a set of values not yours (and with a sister in politics and the difficulties of not being christian in american politics or the public eye, it could count double for her) then some anger would be likely, if not expressed, at least boiling beneath the surface and affecting certain actions.
Not really an excuse, but a possible reason.
Thing is though, annoying as Joyce can be (and she was also horrifically immature, shouting at Joe not in this strip but earlier), Joyce isn’t the worst of Christianity- not that she shouldn’t be challenged mind you (albeit it more maturely) but she isn’t a Fox news anchor or from the WBC (though then bringing yourself down to their level is not something anyone wants either). I mean she realised her reaction to Dorothy’s atheism was stupid and wanted to be friends anyway for instance.
Joyce has potential to grow up- but reactions like this are perhaps more likely to slow any potential growth depending on how the next strip or two go and convince Joyce in her mind that obviously she’s just upset because she’s being confronted with the ‘truth’!
Anyhow, I’m interested on how this will play out.
C’mon Roz and Joyce haters, how mature can we expect everyone to be? They’re college freshmen! What Willis (I think) is doing, is taking the major traits of the diverse characters he’s created over the years and reimagining them in younger bodies with more limited perspectives. Of course they’ll piss you off! Of course they’ll piss each other off! I, for one, am enjoying watching the drama unfold.
Sorry, I meant that to be a general post, not a direct comment on your post. I’m not calling you a hater!
I’m kind of in love with Joe’s shirt. All the more for his last line.
Whilst I used to react in a similar way to Roz (although not with the same words; I never said garbage or synonyms) now my first reaction would be: Prove that I have a soul.
I don’t believe in souls. I don’t believe in faith, I don’t believe in belief. You can call me faithless…
I can prove that you have faith and I can prove you have belifs. Because you are a human, you can be Atheist and dont belive in god or find the idea pointless. But you may never be faithless.
The only option left is you are a spambot, then yeah, you are faithless
well, go ahead then, prove it
Yeah, I’m with Joe on this one.
I wonder about Joe’s religious beliefs.
We know he believes in porking, but does he eat pork?
I know he’s Jewish, but I don’t know if he’s kosher or not.
More to the point: how many petals does Joyce lose from her soul-flower whenever she eats a BLT? Is there a bacon-to-soul-flower-petals conversion chart somewhere on the internet?
If not, then why not?
Because the mosaic law was fulfilled and made obsolete by Jesus. Except for some reason Leviticus 18. People seem to forget this when they get to Leviticus 18. Leviticus 19:27 everyone remembers the situation there, but there’s this mysterious blackout that occurs during chapter 18. Darndest thing.
You know that remind me why I hate Luther, Bible should be read in it original lenguage (not the translation or the Vulgata Latina) with a careful eye. Today any nuts can read the bible and fund some nutty religion (WBC for example). There ought to be a minucious reading and not a general reading like the gnostics.
You’re right. It’s so much better if 90% of people can’t understand it and will never take the time to learn Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and thus have to rely on someone else to tell us what it means. That’ll totally solve the problem.
I’m pretty sure that at least 90% of Christians don’t read the bible for comprehension anyway. (Reading for memorization or for cherrypicking does not count as reading for comprehension, and neither does only reading along with the stuff your preachers cherrypick for you.) So no big difference there.
Though personally, I bet that people who read Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic are almost as capable as wildly misinterpreting the bible as anybody else – they’re just less inclined to because most of them are more scholarly. If laymen could do it, you’d see the same mess out of it.
Every interpretation is valid, misinterpretation can only happen when when you dont read. Not every interpretation is good, but most misinterpretations are bad. You can argue against an “scholar” but not against a fanboy, a troll or a fanatic.
This is utter nonsense – if every possible interpretation is valid then the book has no intrinsic meaning at all. At that point you might as well read an english translation or Moby Dick or the back of a soup can, because you just said that interpreting the original-language bible as a metaphor for the back of a soup can is a valid interpretation.
Suffice to say, if the book actually has enough meaning that that meaning can be obscured by being translated, then a vast percentage of possible interpretations are invalid. After all, any possible interpretation of a translation is obviously also a possible interpretation of the original – since the translated text itself is just a (literal) interpretation of the original text.
Given how illogical your position seems to be here, it sounds to me like you’re just trying to erect some sort of shoddy “people who haven’t bothered to learn aramaic aren’t allowed to argue with me” forcefield in an attempt to win arguments or something. Perhaps you’re very badly misstating your position?
People should not talk about what they dont know or dont understand, I bet the knowledge of most people comes from wikipedia. I dont trust them, of course the ones who whant to know can consult translations or critical work. My point is dont argue if you dont know, but everyone is invited to learn.
Wow, a lot of very serious responses to a post which was mostly just intended to make a pun about pork and porking.
If there was a serious point to my post (which is a very questionable proposition) it wasn’t about whether or not Christians should eat pork. I don’t care whether or not Christians eat pork. It’s totally irrelevant to me.
My point was that Joyce was trying to give Roz (a non-Christian) a guilt trip for not living according to Christian religious beliefs is as absurd as if Joe gave Joyce a hard time for not living according to Jewish religious beliefs.
OhSnap! Just caught the pun. That is fucking hilarious!
Meh, dunno… I just looked it up, and I can’t help but to agree with the whole thing about not giving any of my children to be sacrificed to Molech. I mean, dude, that’d be just wrong.
Of course, Molech was the bad one, is only logical that he eated babies
Technically, the ban on “abominable” sexual practices is mentioned again, in Romans something something, and so exists outside Mosaic law. I’m not defending the belief, but it does have a basis in the New Testament.
Was referring to Joyce’s lack of acknowledgement of a pork ban, which I’m pretty sure is only mentioned in the mosaic law. Since I was on a bit of a tandem I also threw in a reference to the Christian segment of the anti-gay movement and their choice of quotations in support of their claims.
YEAH!!! Go Roz!!
Respect… It doesnt exist. Someday there will be an Atheist Republican President and we all be happy. Hopely also Gay, the moto will be “Mind your own bussines”. Better if is a tough woman, they make the best republicans.
“…while fumbling my penis.” – Joe should continue.
Because, you know, he isn’t dug in deep enough yet.
I like Roz more with each appearance.
I wouldn’t say I like her, but I’m finding her much more tolerable here than her Shortpacked! counterpart. Perhaps because, in this universe, her sexual-liberation shenanigans aren’t sending recovering sex addicts into relapse.
I like this version of her too. She’s outspoken and sex-positive without the self-centredness of her SP! counterpart. Maybe we have yet to see them, but when this version promotes safe sex and the other one just fucks whoever, I’ve got high hopes for this one.
Roz just suddenly jumped quite high in my character appreciation scale!
Why because she is noisy and useless? Or because she thinks just as you? Nobody like different people… oh oh Strawman? not, only awfull truth.
I’d love to address what you think you’re trying to say here. Did you want to rephrase?
I no think is could saying rephrase would meaning eradicate insofar different strawman thinks. Are? Wellness bananas!
At least that’s what I’m getting…
Because she’s someone who finally opposes that religious nut that Joyce is. I’ve been waiting for this from day one.
I am so, so tired of Joyce.
At least she is not a threat to anybody.
Propagating an ideology that places guilt and shame on natural, normal instincts and actions is hardly harmless.
Easy catch, you are talking about religion and Im talking about Joyce. Is Joyce or not a threat, I mean she, as a person. Is SHE a threat?
So your argument is that she’s not personally a threat, but merely acts as an agent of a much larger all encompassing threat.
Best endorsement ever.
One doesn’t need to be a threat to be a horrible asshole.
Darwinian logic, Joyce and her message are only a threat for the weak ones. If Joyce can harm anyone with her message then she is a Threat, if she is not a Threat the speach she uses is harmless. Is like saying, religion dont kill people, people kill people… with religion, but also guns.
Also assholes when dont represent any threat are pretty irrelevant. Not a thing to make a fuzz.
Joyce and her message successfully had most of the known world under its’ sway for a pretty significant chunk of history. It creates an atmosphere of hate that is far more harmful to the people who don’t subscribe to the people who do as evidenced by hate-crimes.
Assuming your premise is that you are somehow weak if you buy into her message, then it’s least harmful to the weak. If you’re weak then you just live according to it and don’t run into any trouble. It’s the masses of these so called weak people that form a threat to the rest of society.
Joyce is the only Joyce in her school, but everyone was a Joyce where she came from and she was considered the mildest and most well adjusted of her class. What do you think happens if someone strays from the path over there?
The other end of this, if I’m to assume you’re assigning those harmed by the actions of the believers as the weak ones, is even more flawed and blatantly offensive to all the many groups that have merely gotten caught in the crossfire of religious extremists.
See we agree. Just that I dont buy the politically correct, the historical truth is that since reinassence the power can control the situation. As you see I dont care if I am being offensive, you yourself want to erradicate some people too. Is very republican if you think about it
Dude, she savagely assaulted someone just two days ago for stepping out of line. Today she is actively engaged in disrupting a learning environment largely responsible for the degree to which our citizenry are competent in their fields. The mere presence of someone who had in the past violated her code was enough to have her reduced to a pure vehicle of rage and aggression akin to a mere violent animal for a moment. This isn’t just a matter of political correctness or history. How do you justify her behavior as being only a threat to the weak?
Maybe he thinks that the non-weak can fight back and beat her to a pulp instead? After all, being a (non-alien-abducted) girl, she’s probably only strong enough to injure weak people when she physically attacks them.
Well, even though they’re normal and natural, our sexual impulses can get us into a hell of a lot of trouble if they’re left totally unchecked. But I do agree that guilt and shame are not productive ways to go about checking ’em.
We have something that places guilt and shame on desire, Its called law. It changes at our will but never fades.
So ergo your statement is legislation needs to be put in place for what happens between consenting adults.
Unless she catches you staring at breasts.
Is this the first time we’ve seen Roz angry in any of the 2 ‘verses?
And to Joe: *SLOW CLAP* 😀
-airfox
Jews have souls?
Yes. Yes we do.
Look us up at your local library to learn more!
Please.
Ah, I see.
Sorry. I musta been thinking of gingers.
tHE jEWISH CONCEPT OF THE SOUL IS DIFFERENT TO HOW MANY cHRISTAIN GROUPS VEIW THEM.
IIRC, to the Jews’ the soul is ‘life energy’ that loses its form when it leaves the body after death, while Catholics and many other Christains believe that you are the soul and the human body is little more than a meat container for it.
I’m an extremist Agnositic. I don’t know and neither do you, and if you think you do… I WILL FIND YOU!
Schrodinger’s god says God exist and doesnt exist till you die. So you can perfectly know God exist… also you know It doesnt. Is both A and B, just A and just B and neither of them.
Are you going to find me? Or I just did troll your mind?
You certainly seem to be trolling *something* around here.
Oh, and God doesn’t exist. I can be absolutely certain. Of course, I can be certain of this because I was taught that the word “God” means some sort of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent thingy that kills people while thinking that’s a good thing (notably Jesus, but numerous others throughout the bible too). This class of entity is logically self-contradictory for a variety of reasons and cannot possibly exist.
Of course, you might use the word differently. There are a variety of possible alternate definitions for “God” that are considerably less impossible. For example, you might call me “God”. In that case I’m quite certain that God exists. So it all comes down to your definitions, really.
Honestly I don’t know what I believe anymore i was raised baptist but now I’m questioning. Guess we won’t know for sure until it’s our time to go.
Now I know I am way late in regards to the flower analogy. But I think it applies to men and women as saying that the more you have sex with different people, the less it means to you and then when you get married it’s very hard to give yourself over to your spouse, in a mutual exchange, fully. With mind, Body, and heart. Thus reduced to only having sex with your spouse not making love with them… Just my thoughts. And so I don’t get flak for being anti women, my name is from something a buddy used to say when I had good pieces of advice. My first initial is Z so he called me Zman.
As someone who holds to the belief in God…yet follows NO religion whatsoever…I find Joyce pitiful AND pitiable at the same time.
I do very much believe in sharing the peace, comfort & joy in my belief with others…but only if it’s asked for. And while I won’t lie & say I never judge others, but such volatile rage is saved for rapists, murderers, politicians (sorry, couldn’t help it!) and abusers.
Do I believe sex before marriage is wrong? Not anymore, but I feel it’s become entirely too cheap these days. I DO believe sex should be saved for a monogamous, long-term, LOVING relationship. It should be based in meaning, not just in brief physical enjoyment. It makes me sad that so many don’t believe that anymore, but I sure as Hell am not going to tell those who do so that they’re no good, damned, dirty, etc.
When Joyce realizes that religion=brainwashing, I really hope she hasn’t alienated everyone who cares about her…because she’ll need someone to help her as she figures out life all over again.
Oh, and I just noticed that Roz said “FOR GODS’ SAKE”, not “FOR GOD’S SAKE” – the placement of that apostrophe means that when she is calling upon plural gods at once, rather than the singular god those christian-types believe in. And only the readers will be aware of this! (Unless she pronounces it differently so that the characters around her can hear it too, which I suppose is possible.) This is awesome – especially if it’s a readers’ only bonus.
Or it’s just an error in quote placement, which would be, er, less awesome. So I’ll stick with my interpretation.
Wouldn’t it be pronounced “godses”?
Nope. God’s and Gods’ are pronounced exactly the same way.
9 out of 10 English teachers agree.
I’ve always heard a plural possessive pronounces with an elongated “s” sound. So god’s and gods are pronounced exactly the same, but gods’ would be “godsss”. This makes it easy to hear the difference.
The ease in communication it creates is the reason for that tenth teacher’s stance.
Not helping, Joe.
Fire, meet Ice.
More like Fire, meet Oil.
I’d buy Joe’s shirt were it available…
These flowers? They thirst for souls.
So to save souls, you must deflower them!
That makes Joe A HERO!!
you know. upon thinking about it why IS Roz down to the roots when Joyce still apparently thinks that Joe can be saved? Interesting double standard…
Well, Roz is the one who posted the Intarwebz video. Presumably, the article described her as doing this often, too.
Roz is anti-clerical. Joe is just a playboy.
Joyce’s words remind me of the Abstinence classes we were basically taught in high school.
Roz loses more petals for taking the lords name in vain!
I’m kind of torn over this. While on the one hand, Joyce is kind of a fruitcake, and Roz’s assertion that she’s fear-mongering is pretty bang on, I’m of the opinon that while how she got there sucks, she is kind of right.
Religious people, I think, have pretty admirable morals and standards-the only problem is they seem to want to impose them on other people instead of leading by example.
I don’t impose my religious beliefs on other people, just my Transformers beliefs.
I supprt Joe’s motion.
I like how Joy’s shirt says ‘classy’ on it. It’s so perfect because he’s not ;).
See, I think of the soul as a flower that grows as it feeds on shit. It takes all the darkness you throw at it and turns it into light and gets bigger and stronger for it. Though if you try and protect it from the world it withers.
Oh Shit I’m agreeing with Joyce
And Joe nonchalantly says they should make out.
I agree with Joe. Also, I really f*cking hate Roz.