Mostly at Catholic services… Joyce isn’t Catholic. Isn’t she some evangelical offshoot or Baptist or something? I guess I don’t know much about Baptists…
Joyce’s parents might be hardcore Baptists, though I think her dad might be a little more than her mom is. The Baptist denomination has gotten pretty legalistic in most churches which really doesn’t bide well with some members in the congregation. If I’m reading Joyce right, I’d say her mother and her brothers may be a little on the Independent Baptist/Non-Denominational side which is how my family is. In fact most of our original church became like that before/during the split of that church. The new guy made everything so legalistic and weird when he came in and weeded out those who didn’t agree with him. It was either follow him or you’re not a Christian which is completely UN-BIBLICAL where it clearly says follow Christ and not man.
Anyways, back to the point, Joyce is being a concerned Christian trying to reach out to the unsaved.
Also for those wondering about the whole wine-thing, wine is primarily only served at Catholic churches, yes, though I think even they go mostly grape juice nowadays. Most other denominations serve only grape juice for communion which is held quarterly or monthly depending on the church and is reserved as a special event and not every Sunday. And then of course the crackers for the bread.
Anyways, I’ve never been to a church that serves wine, haha! Makes me wonder how I’d do visiting a Catholic church. Never been to one. But guess that answers that
Now I get what you’re saying haha! Yeah, he practically lied on multiple issues to get in the church, one was the music and the other was on what kind of material he taught and who he got it from (which was Bill Gothard who is very legalistic. Not to be confused with the hymn writer Bill Gaither) the church held two votes which shouldn’t have happened and later on that caused a split just after the 20th anniversary of the church too.
“serves wine” isn’t exactly the right phrase for how it’s used. It’s more of an extremely minimal perfunctory sip, not really much more than wetting your lip. If anyone stumbles out of church, you can count on it being for some other reason (or at least from some other source).
I think he was meant moreso the the new guy in your church story. You said a new guy came in and didn’t introduce what position he had in the church or anyhting about him. I got the gist of what you meant though.
On another note, yeah churches are getting a lot more political.
When I went back home to Los Angeles a while back, my mother’s relatively new pasture got himself a section on the radio and he spread his negative viewpoints about teaching kids gay history. I was kinda shocked, I don’t like how a good chunk of the Black Community and our churches fight against the Gay Agenda, it ain’t quite the damn same as being Black but hell I think we’re missing the point is that people and events can be omitted from history simply because they revolve around homo-sexuality, like the fact that anal sex (sodomy) was illegal in the US till 1961, I never learned in high school. It’s not so much about the act of anal sex, it about the value behind making a consensual sex act illegal due to residual puritan values.
The irony of it all is that we strive as a people to be Black and different from our once oppressors, but we cling on to Christianity, but the reason why my parents and any other Black person with ancestry in the American slavery of Africans believe in Jesus Christ is because White people abducted our ancestors, separated them from their children, beat and raped the religion into the off spring of our forefathers.
There some good stuff in Christianity, really there is, but we just get so caught up in the Idol instead of the ideal. Its also like this in the bible I really want to read more, but the few passages I read, there was a pretty clear divergence between just being a good and loving person and in the next paragraph the tone would change any goos is redefined as being dressed in the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I’m just going to say that most churches are still against gay marriage including mine. But we are only against the action and not the people. We believe that the action is a sin and should not be allowed within the church. It’s spoken against in the Bible and even described as a disgusting, perverse change that people start to lust after each other. That’s all I’m going to say right now since I’m not well equipped to make an argument about it right now.
I’ve heard that most or all of the bits against it in the bible are either mistranslations or not very clear in what they’re talking about, to the point that the notion that they’re about gay sex at all (as opposed to, say, BDSM or something like that) is simply wild speculation. (Albeit wild speculation thought up generations ago and since codified through repetition.) If one does plain reads of the text and does further research, the ‘evidence’ either evaporates or at least becomes considerably more slippery.
(I’m not really the best guy to argue this either, so I’ll stop here.)
I was going to go on a rant, but I decided just to address this one point: If I were to say that I accept you, but I don’t accept your close relationship with your parents/sibling(s), how would that make you feel? (I can trot out bible verses too if you’d like)
I’m a lesbian and I’m married. Being married is a significant fact about myself, it’s not just some inane quirk like preference for drinking one cup of earl grey once a fortnight. It’s condescending and ignorant of Christians to say that they love me but they don’t approve of my relationship. Be honest- say that you hate me so much that you don’t think I deserve any sort of chance at familial happiness outside of my family of origin.
I’m not going to address your biblical points that you aren’t prepared to defend, you clearly aren’t very interested in them, and I find those parts of the bible dull at this point in my life.
But it sucks cause this kinda a bit of an anti-Christian circle jerk. And thats never right.
Even though there a lot of things that don’t sit well with me like the Bible’s limitless possibility of mistranslations and out right changes from the original text, Christianity’s cult like teachings, and the few but very loud ignorant followers, there still are some good values in it.
It may not be obvious through all the mess, but I think many followers of Christ, are like Joyce and at their core, they just want the same thing we and that most others want, to love and respect one another.
Now Imma end here.before this critique sandwhich becomes an open-faced double decker with chili and cheese on top.
Can we disagree on something without treating each other like dirt? R, you’re the only one who showed any prejudice there. Tim’s statement was respectful, and honestly, perfectly respectable. You came completely out of nowhere accusing him of hatred. It is not condescending for someone to disagree with you without disrespecting you.
Which is not to say I agree with him. I support LGBT very strongly, but that doesn’t mean I have to bite someone’s head off if they happen to think gay sex is wrong. (It simply isn’t the same thing as claiming superiority over or disrespecting someone for their sexual preferences.) So long as you treat people with respect, it doesn’t bother me that someone might believe homosexuality is wrong- even if I think the belief itself is more than a little silly.
I’m a Christian (non-denominational), and I usually consider myself a Conservative. I just happen to think there’s nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. To throw decent people who happen to disagree with you into a lump with bigots is nothing less than prejudice in its own right. You can debate the matter, and say you think their opinions are foolish and unfair, but that does not make them stupid and bigoted people.
I’m tired of LGBT advocates, as well as libertarians in general, who claim to fight for equality and rationality, and then go out of their way to perpetuate hatred. My opinions on religion and LGBT matters have been all over the place at different points in my life, but I’ve found that, no matter what you your position, there is someone there who agrees with you, and manages to unconsciously devote their every act of support to showing the worst of whatever it is you’re fighting for. Christians who cherry pick the teachings that are most convenient to them, to excuse their own actions, and people who bring the fight for equality full-circle back to prejudice.
Thanks David for backing me here. I am in no way a right wing propagandist and definitely not a left wing by any stretch of course. I never said I hated anyone for what they do, to hate someone is wrong and ungodly. I do happen to have a few friends that say they are ‘gay’ and one of them actually got married not too long ago in the summer. I also worked with a guy at KFC a couple years ago whom is also ‘gay’, though that relationship was completely strange and really embarrassing to witness, lol! And he was one of my managers at the time!!!! I actually respected the guy and was somewhat friends with him for a while until he left and dropped off the map.
All in all I don’t think it’s right how people say to ‘tolerate’ other religions and practices, but at the same time if I or any other Christian speaks anything Christian based or disagrees with an issue, then we’re automatically bashed for intolerance. If there was a such thing as a hypocritical sinner, that would be an example. But Jesus did say that those who spoke in his name would be persecuted, whether minimally or being killed like what is going on in the middle east.
Oh, and an answer to your post there begbert, it is true that there are some mistakes in the English translation, because so many English words have so many different meanings unlike the original texts from Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Unfortunately, it’s only been recently that’s been realized, but it’s not too late to correct them.
Hebrew was considered to be the perfect language from the time of Moses (Who wrote Genesis through Leviticus) and beyond and every letter had to be written correctly to a tee to make sure everything was followed and correct. Then when Greek came into the picture the texts were then translated into Greek since it was becoming one of the main languages back then and just in case multiple copies were made for it. It was also just as Latin was coming into play.
Also, Luke (who was a doctor in Jesus’ day and one of his disciples) did most of the writing for Paul’s journeys and his book. And remember, doctors HAVE to be precise. So by what is known as 100 A.D., all the original texts and most of the New Testament was translated into all of these three languages. It’s when the languages started splitting, things became confusing and the church knew they had to get texts translated into those different languages. So my multiple x7 (maybe) great grandfather, John Reynolds, translated the King James Version, the most known version and William Tindall Study Bible (Not very widely known and is one that my grandpa studies most often. He also studies the original texts, mostly Hebrew and Latin)
It’s only guessed that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts. The two books were definitely written by the same author, but the identity of that author remains unknown. It’s only decided to be Luke by Church tradition. It’s most likely both of those books were written by somebody who never met Paul, long after his death, since details of Acts don’t line up with what Paul says about himself in the letters he wrote.
@Khrene Cleaver – I’m not anti-Christian. Christianity and homophobia are not synonyms, despite what anti-gay groups would have you believe. There are many Christian churches that are very supportive of gay rights, including marriage equality. I can generate a list if you’d like.
@David – I did not call him a bigot. His belief (which is not unique to him, I’ve heard it a lot before) is what is hateful, not him as a person. I don’t think he was aware of why it a hateful belief, so I thought it would be helpful to illustrate why. I was a conservative Catholic as a teenager, and a lot of the more intolerant beliefs I held were because I hadn’t been exposed to anything but straw-man arguments of other points of views and I had no idea how they affected actual people. From what he’s said, it sounds like he has very limited experience with gay people, so I think at least I’ve exposed him to the point of view of a married somewhat-older (~30) gay person who is addressing his actual argument. I had assumed he wanted to talk about it, as he brought up gay rights apropos of nothing in the comments of a gay-friendly comic.
For the sake of clarification: What level of support from others is required for my gratitude and silence about matters important to me? I’d like you to clarify what you require to not be offended, if that’s okay with you.
The fact that I’m married has allowed my wife to have access to quality life-saving medicine and treatment for conditions that would otherwise have put her in life-long debt at best and would have killed her at worst. Also marriage isn’t something we’re doing for show, we’re finally buying a house together this year and are planning on adopting a non-infant out of foster care as we want to give a happy home to a child in need. I can’t understand why you or anyone would be bothered that it offends me when people disrespect my family and see my marriage as some minor thing, especially when they don’t seem very interested in why they are doing so.
@ Tim – I don’t like it when anyone’s publicly inappropriately demonstrative with affection too. I don’t think about other people (gay or straight) having sex either. I think that’s very normal. 🙂
Also, I’m a history nut- medicine was much different back in the day than currently, I wouldn’t rely on the fact that Luke was a doctor, training requirements varied from medical school to virtually nothing depending on where he worked. That said, he was a wonderful historian, and he did a lot of great research when he authored his texts (Luke and Acts). The Gospel of Luke is my favorite actually.
I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. “Be honest- say that you hate me so much that you don’t think I deserve any sort of chance at familial happiness outside of my family of origin,” was the phrase that made me twitchy.
While I don’t see Tim as being bigoted per se, it does make me cringe that he (I will assume that Tim is male) wrapped gay in quotations as if to say that we choose our sexuality. It is rather offensive to me, as I have never consciously made the choice to like other men, nor would i have if I had the choice to. That being said I am proud of who I am as part of the LGBT community. Also, one other thing that is cringeworthy is the use of “Gay Agenda” in Khrene’s post. Our only agenda is equality and respect. Anyone claiming otherwise is an extremist. The phrase “Gay Agenda” in itself is demonizing, and makes a statement sound bigoted even if, as in this case, it is not. So be careful when using this phrase because it can make people assume that you think gay people are terrorists pedophiles who are out to recruit your children….and the gay community generally doesn’t take well to that haha.
I respect the right to religion…but I have to say that I believe that the right to marry should be guaranteed as a human right in America, because America has seperation of church and state and because anything other than that would be a theocracy. Which we clearly are not. Anyone who uses their voting power to deny rights to LGBT people are allowing their beliefs to direct their power in a bigoted way. Which is why I don’t think people should vote with their religious views, and instead should vote in a strictly secular way, while still practicing their religious views during personal worship. Even if i personally disagree with something, I try to seperate my values from what is best for the country as a whole, and what gives equal, human rights to the country as a whole. Just my two cents.
I agree that, in any political or emotionally charged issue, one should be very cautious about any unintentional connotations in their wording. Especially when your actual intentions are causing enough tension already.
And, to be fair, there is a significant portion of the LGBT movement whose agenda also includes “demonize anyone who disagrees with us”. Every group has its crazies, you just have to remember that they almost never make up the foundation of the group.
The problem with your ideal of voting is that most people who hold moral values believe that if their values were held in law, it would be best for society. It isn’t theocracy for religion to have a certain amount of influence on the government- and, as the USA is a republican democracy with a very large percentage of Christians in its population, Christianity will continue to have influence.
Someone who believes homosexuality is immoral usually believes there’s more to it than just “the bible says so”- they also believe there’s some sort of detriment inherent in it, even if they only believe that as rationalization for the former belief. Try to see it from their perspective: they honestly believe that it would be for the good of everyone if homosexuality were restricted.
I don’t think that makes much sense. I also don’t think it makes much sense for abortion to be used a birth control, but I have to respect the “pro-choice” position, just as I have to respect “anti-gay” movements, so long as they also show respect.
It has been a long time since I took communion (happy agnostic now, thanks very much) but I don’t remember getting wine or grape juice at all. OTOH, I have reason to believe our priest was a little weird.
Catholic churches are supposed to only use wine (Jesus didn’t say “take this grape juice/koolaid … it is my blood”). The Catholic Church is what kept the US vineyards in tact during Prohibition.
My father’s answer to this was “Grape Juice is basically wine- the alcohol isn’t the important part.” I know very little of the chemical differences between wine and grape juice, so I don’t have an opinion to throw into the ring. It’s mostly just symbolic in the Baptist churches I go to, though, and I don’t think anyone would care if you just dropped purple food coloring into a bit of sugar water. (Well, they would, but only because that would be really weird…)
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which leads them to be purists about the materials used in the Eucharist. For example, I can’t take communion because it has to have gluten in it, even if it makes me sick. It’s one of the big dividing points between Catholics and Protestants. It’s interesting, but more as an academic point of view to me.
Er, I haven’t been since Easter, but my parents’ Lutheran church definitely serves wine and always has. Every week. And they’re not the only one in the area.
But then, Lutheran is basically Catholic Light. So, maybe it’s just those two that tend to do wine, and a lot of other Protestants don’t?
Lutheranism is the first Reformation-based offshoot of Catholicism. It’s ironically one of the closest to Catholicism these days (it probably helped that the Catholic response to some of the grievances was to address them, through the formation orders like the Jesuits, etc). The Church of England is also pretty close to Catholicism. Sadly I know about 10x more about Reformation era denominations than current ones.
Catholic and Episcopal… and maybe Lutheran? I’m not sure about that one. Liturgical churches 🙂 But as far as I know, no grape juice for either of the first two.
I was raised baptist, then everyone but me in my family (I was already away from home) converted to Catholicism. I ended up happily in the Episcopal church 🙂
The exact nature of the Eucharist varies between denominations and sects withing denominations for quite a wide variety of reasons theological, historical and practical. Wikipedia has an article on the topic that matches what I know of the practices within most denominations.
One thing that seems unknown, or at least uncommented upon, in the comments here is that some Christian groups practice closed communion. That said, considering what we know of Joyce, I’d expect her to be of a denomination that, if the Eucharist is offered, it will be grape juice and an open communion.
She has probably attended before. Even if she grew up in an atheist family, which isn’t likely in Indiana, it’s easy for individual members to get roped into going with a friend or a date, as happened here.
They gave us grape juice instead of wine. That’s actually how I learned what grape juice tastes like.
The most interesting thing for me when I was little was trying to figure out where God was in the church. I mean, they said it was God’s HOUSE so I figured that He HAD to be in there somewhere. I was convinced He was playing hide-and-go-seek with everyone.
Maybe. But I think the funniest thing was when I asked what the holy water was used for. I asked because I was thirsty and wanted to drink it (I was going to grab one of the decorative chalices and take a swig). But when they told me it was God’s water, I thought “Well, I’d better leave it alone then. That water belongs to God.”
It didn’t really answer my question, but it satisfied my intent behind the question and thus ended my interest. I still wonder if holy water tastes any different from regular water. Maybe I should drink some.
You only get wine after you’ve received the first sacrament of Baptism and the second sacrament of First Communion through the Catholic chuch. If you drink the wine or imbibe the host without having the proper sacraments, it is a heresy.
If Willis used a semicolon; as forcefully demonstrated here, it would have worked better. On the other hand, Dorothy seems like she’d have awkward pauses while speaking.
Doh, don’t listen to me, the first part of the sentence is a dependent clause. Without the second part (at the end of the sentence) it doesn’t complete itself logically. Dorothy’s awkward interjection just so happens to be in a awkward sentence with correct structure. No fix is require.
If you refer to commas as commata, you are going to get strange looks even from professional, published writers.
Commata were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. It is a bit of an archaic word.
Okay, yes, this suggestion of Joyce’s will probably bring some hate, but considering how naive she is, she approached this… fairly maturely. It’s only if she likes what she hears, after all…
Please don’t hate her. Look at the adorable derpface!
One further, it was postscript. “Hey, we’d love to have you at this party!” “Oh cool, I’ll be there.” “Awesome. Plus, y’know, this means I can say I was out with you last night, so the RA won’t be suspicious.”
Nothing to swallow here – unless you are allergic to all things religious.
I dunno. It’s not like Joyce is saying “I can’t associate with you because you’re atheist.” She’d just like to put her parents’ minds at ease. And I actually bet they don’t mind nearly as much as Becky does.
Considering in It’s Walky her mom prayed to God to subtley let Joyce and Walky know to stop “pulling it out, or doing it in the ass or whatever” at a dinner prayer so that she could get grandkids, I doubt she cares at all… but this is DOAverse, and not Walky!verse, so yeah….
I think the Joyce in WV was in her mid-late 20s when her mother prayed for that, DoA Joyce is like 17-18, so I doubt the mother would be expecting grandkids from her until her education is complete at least.
Yeah its going to bring hate because well even then nicest Christians or those style of beliefs feel it necessary to push when ever they get the chance, regardless of naivety its a dick move and people know its wrong and not fairly mature.
p.s. pushing in the first place shows more hate than the reaction to it
You have any notion of why Christians feel it’s necessary to push it? Because from their perspective, they are trying to save you from something horrible. I suppose if someone believes someone else is drowning, it would be a “dick move” to throw them a life preserver when they’re standing in the middle of the sidewalk? It may be annoying to you, but as long as they’re not doing it for brownie points in their sect, they’re acting honorably. Opposite of a “dick move.”
The reason for that is, so that you don’t end up in a lake of fire for all of eternity. What Joyce is doing is just reaching out like what Christians are supposed to do and not force it down one’s throat if they don’t want it
We’re not talking about doctrine here, we’re talking about intent, which is entirely separate. “Dick move” means someone’s acting like a jerk intentionally. That’s not what’s going on in the case of evangelism, most of the time.
What are your beliefs, then? Have you merged deism with Christianity or something? According to the Bible, you’re leaving them to rot, you know. Just be true to what you believe. That’s all I ask.
Personally, I won’t object if others try to push their beliefs on me. I’m not that sensitive about it – worst case, it’s a minor annoyance, second worst case I learn something.
I have a very clear notion of why they do push and thats the exact problem with it, it by passes logic and social skills and other basic tenets. If i want to learn something i can easily study online or in books or choose to go to church myself or a mosque or a temple etc.
Yes its a subjective reaction to the situation personally i am opposed to it (the pushing not the beliefs) maybe its because where I live its frowned upon behaviour and organised religion is an anathema in some ways. but stuff like that is a cheap shot more so than mormans knocking on a door. Im talking it more of from a social perspective that a belief system
String theory generally doesn’t include claims about a person’s moral worth or threaten eternal burning punishment, so they’re hardly equivalent.
Unless I’m really out of date on my physics.
I’ve had people push stuff on me, too. Take any significantly represented belief on the planet – Christianity, Islam, Scientology, atheism, whatever – you’re going to find people everywhere who push things.
I find it about as threatening as an insult, though – that is to say, not at all. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent” (Eleanor Roosevelt), and no one can irritate you with their evangelism without your consent. It’s like door to door salesmen… personally, I’m not so much irritated by them as I am sad for their plight. I wouldn’t wish that line of work on anyone.
That reminds me, a couple weeks ago there were students at my college holding big signs. One of them had something along the lines of “believe in Jesus” on one side and on the other side said “to save yourself from hell”. There were other variations but all of them meant the same message.
They do these surveys every now and then of people in which they not only say what their general belief but also have to explain their beliefs and the beliefs of several other faiths. Atheists in these polls track significantly more knowledgeable about Christianity than Christians do about Christianity. Why? Because of disestablishmentarianism, essentially. The divorce of religious belief from civic responsibility plus the strong historic force of Protestantism (and Christianity in general) has made Christian the default position for people in the US. So much so that regardless of the specifics of their beliefs (which vary considerably from any Christian denomination’s doctrine) most US residents believe that what they believe is Christian. In the US someone telling you that he or she is a Christian, has made a statement that is nearly completely devoid of content.
asking someone to go to church with you isnt forcing them to become christians.
contrary to popular beliefs we don’t kidnap people and brainwash them as they come through the doors. anyone who goes to church is quite capable of walking away at any time and never coming back
If i the person asking me knew it ran completely opposite to everything that I personally defined my life by yes i would consider that personally rude. myself personally no but I dont really know enough about string theory yet and I would be bored
No but some people consider the indoctrination of youth as brainwashing its very hard for them to walk away but then parents have the rights blah blah im neutral on that topic . but look I dont hate theists probably more than 60% of my friends are theists and they bascially would agree with me on this pushing anything sucks like those damm people who always try and get you to sign of for the wildlife society or Greenpeace when you walking in the street it might be a good thing but if we want we can find our own path to it
There is a difference between street preaching (which this isnt im using this as an example) and have a reasonable discussion with someone especially a friend. I love talking and learning new things about everything and anything with people i just dislike being preached at as your welcome to dislike my dislike on this @ Valdrax
When its really crudely obvious its kinda tacky and unwanted but I have seen it be reasonably amusing before and in one TV series I saw it add to it tremendously to the quality of the show. thats the most honest answer i can think off ^^
Actually, it’s closer to asking her to come to a steakhouse. She doesn’t have to get a steak (or participate) she just would have to look and see if it’s something she could enjoy. Assuming she’s never had a steak/been to church before.
No they dont make you but it works some marketing campaigns increases sales by upto 30%. It plants ideas and emotional links in the brain and memory asssociation they dont have to force because it works subconsciously well enough but dont think its a great analogy for religion
If that’s true, I doubt it’s by design. Businesses’ lifeblood is revenue, so they are driven to make ads as viral as possible. Religions’ lifeblood may be followers, but followers don’t expire except through death, unlike revenue which expires through overhead and other expenses. And followers often leave families behind. Thus if there’s some psychological “trick” in evangelism technique, it’s probably accidental.
Also, all things are psychological, from birth to death. The things that convinced you religions aren’t worth believing in are psychological, more or less. The things that have influenced me to my current philosophical position have been psychological. Think anything else, you’re fooling yourself. 🙂
That “you’re fooling yourself” was based on an indirect “you” which was more an expression or idiom than an intent to direct my last sentence at you personally, for example: “If -you- did x, -you’d- expect y.”
I don’t “force my views” on anyone, but I do my best to act as Jesus did when he was on the earth. If my friends ask about my religion I’ll tell them my beliefs, and will defend them if someone tries to tell me why I’m wrong. That said, I don’t mind a good debate, and if someone brings up good points or things I hadn’t thought of before I don’t reject them without thinking about it. IF they’re being civil about it.
When I was in high school, I had a literature class with a VERY fundamentalist Christian and three or four Atheists. One of the plays that we read in the class (called M. Butterfly) took place during the Korean War and was extremely racy, with scenes of homoeroticism, constant innuendo, and rampant swearing. The message of the play was that even though America thought that it was subduing Korea, Korea actually was letting America believe what they wanted and spying on them instead. The Fundie in my class balked at the reading, refusing to read aloud and going so far as to complain to the school board about the teacher’s choice. However, since it was a college-level course, the school board overruled her complaints. When we finished reading the play, the first words out of her mouth were “This play should never have been written. How can people write this filth?” The atheists and I were chatting after class about it, and I said “I understand her viewpoint, but at the same time I realize the play *needed* to be written that way, so that the message stuck with the audience. Just because it conflicts with your beliefs doesn’t mean it’s filth, it just means that you have to set aside your emotions and judge it analytically. I mean, it certainly didn’t offend ME that much, and I’m as Christian as they come.” One of the guys chuckled at that and said, “Well, yeah, but that’s because you’re one of the most open-minded, unobnoxious Christians I know.”
TL;DR People have their own beliefs, and when you try to tell them they’re doomed because they don’t believe what you do it’s not a minor annoyance; it’s downright rude and obnoxious. Jesus led by example and taught all those who CAME TO HIM TO LEARN, and we should too.
There’s a difference here, though. Christians I’ve talked to aren’t all like, “believe like I do or go to hell.” Yes, that would be rude. Rather, they say something like, “I’m concerned about you. What I believe says this and this, and what it means for you is that it’s critical for you to believe it too. I love you, so I want to do everything I can to spare you the consequences of not believing this, even if it means risking our friendship.”
Just because you put a bow on it doesn’t make shit stink any less. The fact is that no matter how it’s worded, when people are told “You need to believe this” when they don’t think they do, they get angry. Maybe you’re one of the lucky few who has a zen outlook on things, but just because YOU don’t feel offended when someone tries to convert you doesn’t mean EVERYONE does. You need to show people that you respect them, and to do that you need to allow them to believe what they do while acting on your own principles. If they decide “Hey, this guy has it together, I wonder what his secret is?” and come and ask you about it, then by all means feel free to tell them about your beliefs.
The problem with organized religion in general is that people outside the religion have come to the conclusion that each member has a “quota of converts” to fill, and that we care less about “saving” them than we do about their actual well-being. It’s not entirely true, of course, but the fact is that people are less open to comments like “Here’s what I believe, and here’s why you should believe it too” because all too often it’s done without regard for the person’s willingness to listen.
No. I always viewed spreading the word as taking on an informational role, and these days the information is readily available to any and all with or without my help (længe leve internettet). So me not pushing Christianity doesn’t “leave them to rot”. The information is all there, and it’s very readily available at this point. And if they’re really devoted to learning all they possibly can, they can pursue a Th.D.
The way I see it, I’ll talk about religion anywhere, with anyone, anytime. But it’s just not my job to run around re-spreading that which has already attained global distribution and has essentially universal accessibility.
The responsibility to spread the word was a reflection of a period when Paul’s epistles and word of mouth were about all you had to inform you about Christianity. Back then if you didn’t actively spread the religion it was going to die out. We’re well past that point now. Peoples’ souls are on their own heads now. I’m busy with my own, and it’s hard enough to manage by itself.
Look, Howitzer, Christianity is the most well known religion in the world. There aren’t going to be any people hanging around california, or ohio or indiana or whatever who will go to hell because they never knew any better, and if only you had let andy the athiest know he would have embraced God, for he just didnt know it existed.
Past that sending someone to eternal damnation through no fault of their own sounds like some made up tacked on crap to me.
Along with sending homosexuals to hell. Of all the stupid crap to eternally damn someone for, its how they choose to express love?
Yeah not buying it. Sounds like vestigial crap added on to serve a purpose that has long since been obsolete.
God judges the worth of a man…. And I dobt see him placing a child molesting priest in heaven and a upstanding athiest in hell. That sounds retarded, not what comes to mind when you think of omnipotence.
God judges, Not a preacher, and certainly not some screeching hate filled jerk that seems to always end up on youtube shoving the ‘word’ down everybodies throat.
Ugh…those guys can jump off a cliff
Or better yet they can jump onto blind blobfishes yard.
She was starting to be a independent, tough, strong girl with innocence out the wazzoo, and it took a LOT to get me to like her after the ‘I’M GOING TO BEAT JOE UP BECAUSE HE LOOKED AT ANOTHER GIRL” Bit..
I don’t think she’s independent, tough or strong yet. She showed the potential to be it in the arc where she got drugged. Her reaction afterwards when she was no longer in danger was to pretend it didn’t happen and forget about it. That is not something an independent, tough or strong person would do.
Eh, asking someone you know isn’t your religion, and has shown no interest in your religion, to go to church with you in an attempt to convert them is a dick move, even if she did walk right into that one.
Dorothy pretty much begged Joyce to name a favor. And Joyce thinks church will be to Dorothy’s benefit, so it’s hardly as selfish a favor as Joyce could make it – just a couple hours of Dorothy listening to something Joyce thinks will be to Dorothy’s benefit.
If he had asked her to go to cinema with Joyce, to a film Dorothy thinks will hate, but Joyce believes she might love, that’d be roughly the same.
I don’t see where she’s being a dick about anything.
Under normal situations I would 100% agree. However, one of the base tenants of Joyce and Dorothy’s relationship appears to be that they wont try to convert each other.
That being said it is probably an important step in their friendship, or will be as long as Joyce accepts it when Dorothy, quite inevitably, does not instantly jump on the god wagon. It paves the way to actual respectful discussion about their separate beliefs rather then electing to ignore them.
Okay, now that you’re done seeing this from Dotty’s perspective, why don’t you try Joyce’s on for a few tenths of a second?
According to what she believes, if she doesn’t try to convince Dorothy, Dorothy will end up in hell. Joyce is being as philanthropic as philanthropic can be here – she is doing the best she knows to make Dorothy as happy as possible, without regard to whether her offer may jeopardize their friendship. For all she knew, Dorothy could have reacted… like you!
Also to consider, perhaps Joyce is not actively trying to convert Dorothy (though it would definitely be a nice bonus). Maybe Joyce doesn’t want to go to a new church for the first time all by herself. If it turns out she doesn’t like the parish, at least she’ll have gotten to spend the morning with her friend.
Christians tend to forget things that inconvenience them, like how Jesus was warm and loving to a Prostitute and drew her to the faith by support and not judging her..
Everyone has faults. I think your fault is saying that because it’s not just Christians who have faults, it doesn’t matter if Christians also have faults.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who are Christians who do not act in the spirit of the religion and forget how it came about. They forget the true tenants of the faith for one reason or another.
It’s one thing to have a fault. It’s another to have a fault that contradicts your religion which you go around essentially bragging about. Note: you is in the general sense here. People who claim to be Christian are asking to be judged by a higher standard. If they can’t follow their own faith, why should someone outside the faith respect them?
On the issue of clean vs unclean foods, fishes with scales were OK, things like squids, eels, sea urchins, sharks and so forth were all desinated unclean.
The Old Testament stuff still exists, but you have to remember that Paul felt that those laws were only for Jews, them being a Covenant only between the nation of Israel and God. Paul stressed often that Gentiles shouldn’t feel required to follow Jewish laws and customs, and that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for their salvation.
Though that may seem an awful convenient loophole to outsiders, you’re not gonna “gotcha” many Christians by pointing out these bits of Old Testament. They know about them, and they no longer apply.
The sexuality laws are mixed in with all the other laws. People shouldn’t be able to pick through the ones they believe only apply to Jews, and use the rest to condemn their fellow Gentiles.
Admonitions against certain kinds of sex are not exclusive to the Old Testament. Paul too had words against banging your own gender. Paul’s actually the only dude in the Bible who mentions girl-on-girl, rather than only boy-on-boy.
Well, they’re unclean ‘cuz they eat pork and worship strange gods and have unclipped wangs. Those are all cleanable things. Some of Israel’s greatest Old Testament heroes were foreigners taken in. There’s Ruth, for example, who ended up being the great grandmother of King David.
Of course, Ruth had to begin following Jewish law. Similarly, there was a faction in the early church which believed, as Christianity was spawned from Judiasm, that converts to Christianity must first convert to Judiasm. Paul obviously disagreed.
You’re confusing the culinary world with the biology world. In the culinary world, fruits are sweet and vegetables are savory. In the biology world, fruits contain seeds and vegetables don’t exist.
Well, as Ayumu “Osaka” Kasuga astutely observed, the word “dolphin” in Japanese is written as “sea pig”. So I suppose that you used to get a little sea bacon with every can of tuna.
Also you get “river pig” from puffer fish, so it seems. So there are two kinds of sea bacon which are conceivable.
I can remember back when I was a kid in Church and the pastor often warned against becoming like the Pharisees who used their ‘godliness’ as a way to make themselves feel superior to others rather than as a means of saving souls.
Yeah, luckily Christians are better than those darn Pharisees. ;-D
The only thing I remember from back when I was a kid in church was drawing TRON lightcycles on the prayer cards. Well, that and always wanting to be the first one to put down the kneeler when it was time to kneel.
The last thing I remember from the last time I went to church was when it came time to wish peace to each other and frantically looking about to decide who I wanted to shake hands with so I didn’t have to shake hands with oily guy who was next to me.
most christians don’t do that either. the fact that you’re most likely basing these statements on some loons you see on tv or possibly around wherever you live is just about as closed minded as you’re accusing christians of being
Unfortunately, many people do act like that, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Real Christians can’t afford to put up with that garbage and should set the record straight whenever possible.
Generally, the person talking loudest becomes the face of the group to other groups. Also, the person talking loudest is usually the one the rest of the group wishes would just shut up and stop giving them a bad name.
Yeah, go on you tell all those false Christians that they ain’t real Christians until they think just like you do. Put them in their place, Shame them and bar the kingdom of heaven to them. maybe you could go to their funerals with signs saying how they are doomed to hell for following false prophets. That’ll show ’em.
Dude thats just disrespect man, you’re kinda twisting up Laura’s words.
Yes she(?) said the extremist were false Christians, but what you’re doing is lumping her and other more moderate Christians in with the extremists and the ignorant. Laura waswere trying to separate her and her like-minded people from the extreme and be less polarized and more accepting of less pious beliefs, but you had bee polarized yourself and attack her.
Point is you’re kinda being that guy everyone else wants to shut up, the very equivalent to the people you despise because you’re needlessly disrespecting the others… not even opinions, this was just a statement.
I can’t explain your disrespect any better than I have.
What I was doing was saying that she is no better position than those others to determine who is and who is not a true Christian. When you label those you disagree with being wrong not in their positions but because they are getting their faith wrong (“Those guys over there aren’t real Christians,we’re the real Christians”) you are engaging in precisely the sort of bigotry that she accused the other side of having. If you consider yourself to be a Christian and you have a disagreement with someone else who is a proclaimed Christian it is not fair to simply haul off and label that person a false Christian. It is bigotry and it leaves the outsider nothing to go on since both groups claim to have an exclusive lock on the essential quality of being Christian.
But that’s the thing – personal, anecdotal evidence does not define a group. It’s just like when Fox News proclaims all Muslims as terrorists. Their limited experience with Muslims suggests it, so of course they’re going to bongo and moan about a mosque being built near Ground Zero.
If you say “well all the ones I know are like that,” especially when you clearly don’t want to spend time with any Christian, you’re acting like the kind of person you hate.
You can say I act like” The people I hate” When I force a 16 year old to get married to the 24 year old that got her pregnate and proceed to beat her in private.
I said personal, anecdotal evidence does not define a group. And the only thing you can respond with is personal, anecdotal evidence.
Janos, you are stereotyping. If you honestly think all Christians are terrible because of the few you know (and I’m sure even those you don’t know personally) then you just simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Janos, who was that prostitute you mentioned? In scripture, only two women who were sexually immoral were dealt with by Jesus. The first was the woman at the well who was also a Samaritan, and the other was dragged alone, despite Mosaic Law demanding the man she sinned with also be dragged to be stoned.
Unless you’re one of those folk who think that Mary of Magdala, who had 7 demons cast out of her was a prostitute, but there’s no evidence she was a prostitute. Shoot, until 591 no one even thought so, until Pope Gregory I wrote that homily.
Yeah my religion preached pretty heavily that “Mary Magdala” was a prostitute, they had one of the teenage girls be her in a play and announce loudly that she was a prostitute that God forgave ._.
Jesus hung out with people that Christians would call sinners (and whom the Hebrews of his time would call unclean) but I do not recall a single character in the New Testament who could be called godless (save, I guess for Paul’s hypothetical ” . . . fool in the road.” One can be a knowing or unknowing sinner (I suppose) but one can hardly be “godless” without self-awareness of the fact.
“Christians would call sinners..” You mean, everyone, including ourselves? >.> No one on earth is perfect. People use the word “sin” very melodramatically.
I’m not sure what “Godless” means in this context, or any context, for that matter.
People Christians would consider immersed in sin or unapologetic about their sin. I am aware that for some Christians sin is the natural state of man (and that doctrinarily this is true,but Christian in the US is a fuzzy,slippery term).
Godless would be those who reject god’s teachings or existence entirely. Nobody seems to be that in the New Testament . . .
One of my ex-girlfriends was a hardcore christian(and I was and am an atheist) and she asked me to go to church and just try it out with an open mind. I said okay, and my mind was completely open.
I fell asleep. So yeah, church is boring.
Fun Fact: Later, she cheated on me on her birthday at a christian rock festival with a guy named Chad.
But I’m sure she just prayed for forgiveness and she felt all better. Christians love justifying their hypocrisy by saying all they have to do is pray for forgiveness and they’ll be forgiven.
Like oh so many statements before this… not all christians are like that. I know some that would not dare use such a cheap scape goat to justify their actions.
Christian contemporary music has more going for it than you’d think. There’s even Christian metal (“white metal”) and hip hop (“holy hip hop”). Pretty much any artist who stands up and says “I’m going to create and publish music with religious themes” isn’t just religious, but must also be a dedicated musician to want to work in such a field with a smaller market. To anyone not bothered by Christianity, CCM is just a sector of the industry, no better or worse than the rest.
That being said, there is some TERRIBLE Christian music, along with the good. Of course, the secular music industry has Justin Bieber, so I guess it evens out?
Not any artist. Christian pop music is also an area that can be cynically exploited because a large section of the audience refuses to be critical of those who share their faith (and a significant portion of the audience is musically sheltered and naive and will not recognize an artist as riffing on popular secular music). And there are artists who occasionally cross over into mainstream popularity at least occasionally (as when Jars of Clay’s “Flood” reached number 37 on Billboard’s pop chart).
It isn’t something I usually go for. But “Avenged Sevenfold” is pretty darn good at what they do, I have to say. That’s about as close as I ever get to Christian Rock.
I normally can’t stand characters who act like Joyce, but she’s just too adorably naive and innocent to stay mad at. She’s like a little puppy dog who makes a mess ’cause she doesn’t know any better.
I never said there was. I was actually talking more about fundementalism in general than this specific incident. Most fundies make me want to scream “CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!” Joyce just makes me go “awww”.
I suppose its my own fault for not explaining WHY its condescending. The problem is that Joyce has assumed that this person who does not believe in God(and is clearly very well read) doesn’t believe in God because she is not properly informed.
Its a common problem. We as people often assume that if other people only knew what we knew they would agree with us. We don’t consider the idea that maybe if someone had all the information we have they would still disagree with your interpretation.
Do you guys honestly think she’ll hear anything she hasn’t heard before? If its not condescending its definitely naive.
I contest that their is something wrong with it, not terribly so but in the same way if you know someone hates Twilight is a decent example and you pester them to come see the movie with you, its bad social habit and really attempting to convert someone in the first place is just a bit sad does naivety = lack of respect?
who said anything about pestering. asking someone if they want to come to church with you is not like battering someone into submission, at worst you’ve wasted an hour and at best you find something special that could change your life.
That Twilight example? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable, if annoying, social exchange. Like asking a sports fan to miss a game so he can watch cartoons with you. Or asking someone who hates video games to watch you play WoW for an hour.
But you’re not really becoming a blank slate – you still have opinions and perceptions about religion. So I would say converting works as a word, for lack of a better one.
It is backward, I suppose. Conversion usually implies adopting new beliefs, but converting to atheism is just abandoning your prior beliefs. (Well, some things may be picked up, such as the Theory of Evolution and some new philosophy regarding the nature of existence, but that’s not really the same thing, is it?)
“The belief that you shouldn’t have beliefs” (which is kind of silly, unless you’re talking about solipsism- do you hold the belief that the earth orbits the sun?) is different from abandoning prior beliefs.
I’m not sure if I’d call it “conversion” to become an atheist. That seems more like one’s faith simply failing than their faith shifting, though it depends on what philosophy they adhere to.
It really is going to be a case by case basis for each person. I’d personally say someone “decides” to be an atheist but I could understand someone saying that they converted to it. Each to their own which is why I think it’s a bit of a silly thing to argue over.
I can’t help but go “D’aaaaaaw, Joyce! How cute!”, but at the same time, feel sorry for Dorothy. As a person who was once wrapped into that sorta situation (sans le intended rape incident, mind you), going to church once doesn’t help make me ‘like what [I] hear.” Oh well, my percieved godlessness is just fine with me. Whatever happens Dorothy, I hope this is the universe where Walky becomes a doctor. If only for your sake.
I personally fear it because I want to get away and explain things without being insulting, which they usually make damn near impossible; its a fear of having no choice but to be rude, mean, or waste large amounts of time.
From the point of view of someone who left the church with all the trauma involved, it can be seen as hostile. Especially when it comes from a relative who keeps giving you advice on what to do when you’re left behind.
Oh, I understand completely, my dad tends to breathe down my neck a lot about what he thinks I should be. But I’ve grown to the point where I like who I am, so it’s not threatening anymore – it’s like a fly buzzing around, I just brush it away.
Letting people get to you like that is just a sign that you need to grow. At least that’s how I take it, but that’s a view that’s served me well.
I feel sorry for her in the sense that it’s not really asking her a favor. To be honest, a favor is more “Well, there’s this Bible game I’d like to try out” or something, not “Go to church with me on Sunday.” You don’t need someone to hold your hand on the way to church, unless she wants emotional support before confessing her sin of violence. But confessions are a Catholic thing, right?
Confession is (in the sense of an actual doctrine rather than a rote acceptance of the label) a Christian thing. Though God is omniscient part of the duty of a Christian is to confess her/his sins. In Catholicism (and several other denominations) one confesses to a priest as God’s intermediary, in other denominations you confess directly to God or to Jesus or to the community as a whole (and isn’t that a fun image); even the straightforwardly not Christian Church of Scientology is built on a process of confession (auditing). In all cases that I know of confession is a healing process for the sinner doing it.
Because there’s a perception out there that if a person disagrees with a Christian, regardless of how respectful they are about it, then that Christian will become hostile to the person for not adopting the same beliefs.
We can argue about how accurate such a perception is but it doesn’t change the fact that it exists. Only an ass goes around arguing with their Christian friends all the time that god doesn’t exist. Being put on the spot to go to church with Joyce means afterwards Dorothy is going to have to explain why she doesn’t agree. This isn’t horrible on its own…except because of a large majority of Christians not acting very Christian, most people expect a big clash and remonstrating for it.
Yes. Yes it does. It makes me remember the time I went to church and spent the whole time thinking. “I’m going to hell, I’m going to hell, I’m going to hell” Followed by incoherent mental sobbing.
So If I go back, I won’t just be bored. I’ll spend the entire time remembering that. 😀
Eh, I really don’t like being proselytized to, but primarily because of bad experiences and associations with it in the past. In HS, I was an out atheist, so I had people stopping me in the halls to try to convert me on a regular basis. It got annoying fast. Combine that with customers at my current job trying to get me to join their church(they don’t even know I’m an atheist, they apparently just try to get anyone they’ve never seen in their particular church to come), some of which were so enthusiastic about preaching that they scared other customers, and my reaction to an invitation to church from a friend would be “HELL NO”.
They do but its mostly about secularism and actually many people of other beliefs are invited because their main goal is separation of church and state. and lots of philosophy and science stuff as well. its less about Atheism and more about cool stuff
Oh sure, I go to Heathy-con every year! Last year I came in second place cosplaying as Charles Darwin but some guy that came in as Richard Dawkins took the gold.
This is a common misnomer Atheism isn’t a hatred of theism. to quote
” its impossible to hate or dislike what we dont think exists its like hating Santa or the Easter bunny”. Its all about promoting positive atheism and septation of church and state, im sure some people use it as a social thing as well to meet like minded people maybe they are just giant dating conventions but they are mostly harmless from what i have seen.
The separation of church and state falls under secularism, a related but distinct phenomenon. It is entirely possible to be both a theist and a secularist. An atheist is someone who does not accept God/gods. Any further definitions, and you are reaching.
Furthermore, I’d be leery indeed of throwing around canonical atheist quotes declaring what “we” believe. The most important thing to remember about atheism is that it is not a group with a unified belief system. It is the “none of the above” option.
Separation of church and state, as I was taught it, was a phenomenon started by religious folks. Something about wanting to practice their religion without a government getting involved in how they worship and deciding what they should believe. But lately politicians are making me think that what I was taught is incorrect.
‘religious freedom’ was started by religious folks
‘separation of church and state’ was started by annoying rabble rousers who are so insecure in their beliefs that they believe that stuff like “in god we trust” on money or the ten commandments in a court house are infringements on their religious freedom
A. “in god we trust” on money and ten commandments in a court house is the government saying they value other beliefs or non-beliefs less. In my opinion, the former is a minor issue that’s not a big deal but is a legitimate issue that doesn’t merit your frankly rude condescending. As far as the latter goes, why the fuck do you need the commandments in a court? Isn’t that what those churches are for?
B. The idea of Separation of church and state is an (very old) interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and therefore from… OK they were rabble rousers. but not the group of rabble rousers you described.
C. The entanglement of church and state is a problem with church ejecting itself into law. It being the sole justification used by many fighting against LGBT rights, women’s rights and proper sex education to name only the tip of the iceberg.
> ‘separation of church and state’ was started by annoying rabble rousers
You mean like the Founding Fathers of the United States, who embedded Seperation of Church and State in the Declaration of Independance and Constitution.
Yeah, I can see how some people might have considered them “annoying rabble rousers”, like the Archbishop of Canterbury and King George III.
the united states was founded as a nonsecular nation. thats different from separation of church and state
nowhere in the constitution is there any mention of a separation of church and state. all it says is that congress cant make a state religion and that all beliefs are welcome.
the constitution itself was heavily based on certain doctrines of religion and also on the “constitution” of the freemasons who, at least back then, required all members to be part of a religion.
the founding fathers allowed prayers in schools, put the 10 commandments in courts and would say a prayer before the opening of every congress, i think they still do.
they did not necessarily believe in a separation of church and state, they just believed in inclusiveness
The United States was absolutely founded as a nation with separated church and state. Watch too much Fox and you might get some delicious, fluidic retcon all over you.
Jefferson used the phrase “separation of Church and State” and it is certainly a legitimate (and powerful) interpretation of the establishment clause. However, for at least the first fifty years of the nation’s existence (and to some extent until the resolution of the American Civil War) such constitutional limits were interpreted as solely limits on what the FEDERAL government could do, while state governments were freely allowed to engage in such activities as suppression of the press and establishment of state religions.
“In God We Trust” on money dates back only to the Civil War and was an attempt to give people more confidence in government backed currency. the US Supreme Court has declared that it is constitutional on the grounds that “In God We Trust” is a mere slogan and is therefore meaningless. American Christians have rejoiced in a court decision saying that this declaration of faith is the meaningless equivalent of GE’s “We Bring Good Things to Life.” What a victory . . .
In god we trust(as is nearly every overt reference to religion) was not created by the Founding Fathers. Not even close. All that stuff came about through the 20s-50s as a popaganda response to the Nazi and later communism.
You realize that “In God We Trust” was added to coins in the 50’s in order to combat Communism, right?
The separation of church and state isn’t for anything nearly as petty as that. It’s incredibly important for religious freedom that religious dogma doesn’t dictate laws. It’s impossible for everyone to follow every doctrine of every religion at the same time, so you’d have to accept one specific religion’s laws which inherently violates religious freedom.
Describing myself as an atheist is not my making a statement about the universe, it is a statement about me. It means I have no belief in the existence of god(s). It is not me stating categorically that god(s) does not exist. Then a**holes tell me I’m not an atheist but an agnostic, and we wind up a screaming fight anyway (yes, I am an agnostic; but that is even more meaningless than an American telling me she is a Christian; everyone is an agnostic, only the truly disturbed {unless god is a total jerkwad} believe they are not agnostic; a person is either a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic).
Atheism believes that religion and Christmas exist, but doesn’t believe in God or Santa Claus. Atheists think that people who believe in God or Santa Claus have mistaken ideas about how the presents get under the Christmas tree, and some of them may get annoyed when others try to force them to leave cookies and milk out, or when others try to codify belief in Santa into law or create laws that only make sense if Santa exists.
Atheism is simply the state of not having faith in the existence of god(s). Agnosticism makes a distinction between belief and knowledge. Religion offers you the former, not the latter. Hence everyone is an agnostic because no one has knowledge of god’s existence,regardless of the strength on an individual’s faith.
There are (at least) two separate definitions of each of the terms “Atheism” and “Agnosticism” which various people think are the correct definitions:
Atheism1: Lack of belief in any gods. Babies have this.
Atheism2: Dead certainty in the absence of gods. Babies lack this.
Agnosticism1: Lack of complete certainty as to whether god(s) exist. This is compatible with a moderate or large amount of belief either way, so long as 100% certainty isn’t there. Most atheists qualify, even very strong ones, due to vanishingly small possibilities and the like; on the other hand it seems that the majority of theists do not qualify. – most claim certain knowledge from one source or another.
Agnosticism2: the person just isn’t sure either way; they lack strong belief in either direction. They ‘aren’t sure’.
Note that these definitions aren’t really exchangable; these terminological problems tend to make discussions about either atheism or agnosticism rather a mess.
I think you’re kind of oversimplifying agnosticism. There is no proof of god’s existence so an agnostic cannot outright believe or have faith that there is a god. However, there is no proof that god doesn’t exist either, so an agnostic cannot outright be atheist.
For someone who follows a religion, proof does not need to exist for them to believe that god exists. Therefore the knowledge is irrelevant and they are not an agnostic.
An atheist need not (and probably should not) have faith that god(s) does not exist. That is more like a sort of twisted theistic position. An atheist need merely have no faith in the existence of god, opinion (as opposed to faith) is another matter.
Yes Dorothy, you walked right at that. I don’t think Joyce means it as definitive though, just a “let’s see if it works” I don’t she would be capable to take her bring her to the church with a leash if she refuses… I gues…
Do her comunity at least sells cookies or pastries? things tend to get better when there is at least tasty food.
Sorry, but I’m almost embarrassed by some of my fellow nonbelievers’ comments here. God (irony intentional), you guys are whiners.
Seriously, is your lack of faith so WEAK that it can’t survive doing a friend a solid by accompanying them somewhere that makes them happy, even if you don’t get anything out of it? Basic human sympathy just beyond you?
I can sit down with the most religious members of my family, in their church, and never feel a thing. Y’all act like you still BELIEVE, and you think poor Dorothy’s gonna get gang saved, or catch on fire or something.
I’m generally in favor of people on fire. I wish more protesters would follow the examples set by Buddhist monks during Vietnam. Especially those people who were upset by Chaz Bono being on DWTS.
Depends on the church. If they are preaching love and forgiveness, fine. If they are preaching discrimination, expelling people from the worship team because a family member wasn’t successfully faith-healed, or preparing for the coming apocalypse, I won’t even go home for Christmas.
Yeah, many Christians would find that kind of church as disturbing as athiests, if not more so. For you, it’s just offensive and obnoxious, for us it’s a perversion of our core beliefs.
“Y’all act like you still BELIEVE, and you think poor Dorothy’s gonna get gang saved…”
You, my dear [person], are a wordsmith and a poet.
I am going to spend the rest of my life thinking of that word everytime I think of a college evangelical prayer circle.
You know, the four-squares are kinda fun. They just sing and dance and play music with a live band. Sure it’s praise music, but so is most of Christmas and nobody seems to mind.
If it were a Catholic mass, though… I’ve definitely been there, done that, got the communion, and I’m pretty sure I burst into flames. My poor family was very confused. It took months of therapy and reconstructive surgery, but here I am – too sexy for this comment!
secondly, that might be true, but if you consider the possibility, not knowing anything about dorothy’s back story, that shes a ‘vegetarian’ not for moral reasons necessarily, but because she was raised that way and took to it, then i dont think offering he some meat is that bad a thing.
that being said, the odds of dorothy “seeing the light” at this mass will be astronomical. if i were a betting man then id imagine that this is more a ploy by joyce to help dorothy see things more from joyces point of view and get to a sense for the forces that raised her as to strengthen the bond of friendship between the two girls
Actually, it could be a good thing – public setting, lots of people, he can’t try anything. If Sarah hasn’t told Joyce the “pastor’s son” was the assailant, she’ll find out and be more cautious in the future with suspicious drinks.
But Joyce doesn’t remember what he looks like, does she? Maybe she will remember if she sees him, but if not… Neither her or Dorothy knows what he looks like, while he does know what Joyce looks like.
Bad. News. But a potential for conflict, so… good storytelling.
Why would she remember meeting him but not remember his face? And Dorothy totally could see his face when she first ran over to the scene after Sarah beat the snot out of him before he escaped while Amazi-Girl was distracting him.
No, it’ll be nothing to worry about. All one would have to do is toss a little of the holy water on Mr. McRapist and he’d instantly burst into flame. Problem solved, and Dorothy gets a memorable church experience. Two birds, one stone.
I’m an atheist, and I get that “You should come to service with me” sometimes.
I don’t find it annoying unless it’s done repeatedly by the same person after I said “No thanks”. Even then, I understand from their point of view they’re trying to do a good thing for me.
Honestly the only way I can see this being offensive is if you’re arrogant enough to find someone thinking you might be wrong and they might be right offensive. And that in and of itself is dickish.
I’m not an atheist and I find potentially find her disrespect for how Dorothy got to believing what she believes offensive. Well, if she just wants company it’s a different story of course, but to think something like going to see religion in action would convert someone so easily indicates that she thinks Dorothy’s views are shallowly based at best. “What? You don’t agree with me? You must not have spent enough time looking at the information/seeing REAL religion in action.”
So going to see religion in action isn’t going to work because she’s seen REAL religion in action? Where is religion most real, then? Seems to me you’d find out the most about a group of people and their beliefs by going somewhere you could talk to them. Probably a building where they all convene on a regular basis, where their beliefs are freely expressed, where you can observe how they treat each other. But for the life of me I can’t think of what such a venue would be called.
I believe that Jinxed44 intended to put that “REAL religion” quote in Joyce’s mouth. That is to say that Joyce thinks that the only reason Dorothy’s an atheist is because she hasn’t been to a REAL church yet (ever in her life). Joyce hopes that when Dorothy visits Joyce’s (REAL) christian church, and is touched by the real spirit of Christ that Joyce assumes permeates the place, that then Dorothy will discard those ill-thought whims that make her godless and become, er, godful.
Precisely, L, but I wouldn’t call it dickish, more like insecure. If someone saying “you’re wrong and I’m right” bothers you, what are you doing on this planet?
I’m an atheist and I’ve taken people up on that offer. Sadly, they all get disappointed when I don’t find their beliefs all of a sudden logical and convert.
A buddy of mine from a much more Conservative sect of Christianity actually tried to convince me to go to his church and have a debate with his pastor over a number of issues. That had bad idea written all over it, so I passed.
Just thought I’d throw out that some Christians occasionally find it necessary to convert other Christians to their interpretation of Christianity. So it’s not just you non-Christian folk getting handed pamphlets and told you’re going to burn. Even we converted get it on occasion.
Some of the crazier fundamentalists especially seem to have this big time towards Catholics. Just look at Chick Tracts. When the discussion turned to those before, I looked at the topics. Catholics were the only Christian denomination that was addressed in them.
I have considered the issue and have come to the opinion that when talking about group activities where little or no active participation is required, silence is assent. This is often made explicit in the case where an individual is conducting the service or performing the prayer: when they say “we thank thee, god, and swear ourselves to love and serve you”, this statement applies to all members of the congregation, including those who don’t join in the quiet murmur of ‘amen’. As best I can tell the only way to negate this automatic assent would be to immediately and LOUDLY proclaim your dissent.
Now, I know that there are many people who would say that my silent dissent is a qualitatively different statement than the next guy’s silent assent, despite being completely indiscernible from each other. To these fine people I say, “bullshit”. If I am in a group and the people of the group start yelling “all gay people should be murdered”, then remaining silent and present is still offering my support to the idea. One does not need to be carrying a sign to be an active part of a protest, and one does not need to be yelling hosannas to be an active part of a congregation.
As a person who has, after long consideration, concluded that all variants of the Christian god and its religion depend on an abhorrent example of pointless human sacrifice, not to mention various other problems that different sects and churches dabble in, I consider it immoral to participate in support of any of it. Actively immoral, even to just sit in.
So, by your claim that even sitting in is immoral (even putting aside how that makes you more judgemental than any of them), how is anyone supposed to draw their own conclusions about Christianity? Are they just supposed to take your word for it?
There is a difference between being a part of a group and being a visitor. Unless you mean that the people around you don’t know the difference – and since when do other people’s thoughts influence the morality of your own actions? You do not have to be loud and disruptive to not accept what a group says.
Also, you seem to have this habit of using insanely exaggerated examples to “prove” your point, not realizing that circumstances do in fact change with degree. If someone says “all gay people should be murdered,” then yes, it would be right to say something against it. If, instead, they say “God exists,” and you yell your disapproval at the top of your lungs, you are not behaving in an appropriate manner. You’re acting like a petulant child who never wants to hear anything different than what they believe.
Every person in America knows what Christianity is about; don’t be ridiculous. And for the vanishing percentage that manage to slip the the very, very, very small amount of exaggeration in the above statement, they can do a google search and find out about it. You do not have to personally indulge in something to find out about it. Except for crack cocaine. That’s are totally harmless and good for you, and if you haven’t tried them personally you really can’t know otherwise. There’s no other way to find out about it except trying it out.
Paragraph two: I addressed this explicitly. Quiet participation IS assent, and support. Hell, quiet non-participation flirts with being assent from a functional standpoint: ask any gay person in a state that banned gay marriage based on the popular votes of less than 50% of the population. I’m not going to exercise my outrage by picketing anybody’s churches, though: I would consider that behaving in an inappropriate manner. (Though possibly a wise manner.)
Finally, there is no exaggeration. I really do personally consider a quiet placid church meeting to be on a comparable moral level as a slave-owners meeting back in 1810. The people at the church are placidly unaware of the corrupt nature of their morals – rather similarly to how racism was calmly and casually prevalent back in the day. This didn’t make racism good then, and it doesn’t make blind unthinking acceptance of the sort of dieties that would employ human sacrifice as a scapegoat justice system good now.
You probably think that comparison is insane. That’s nice; I think the beliefs in question are at least as insane. And your complaints about that fact sound rather petulant to my ears too.
“Every person in America knows what Christianity is about; don’t be ridiculous.”
Oh, so very, very wrong. There are many people who consider Christianity to simply be a series of “right acts” to “earn” their way into heaven. Even some Christians think that. And there are various other groups with misconceptions about Christianity, such as those who think that there’s something inherently immoral about someone giving their life for others.
“And for the vanishing percentage that manage to slip the the very, very, very small amount of exaggeration in the above statement, they can do a google search and find out about it.”
That’s like saying that school is pointless, that kids can just do google searches to learn anything they want to learn. Going to church allows for not only easier learning, but person-to-person contact where people can ask questions and get things directly explained to them. Not to mention that going is a thing most Christians do on a regular basis, and to make a decision about Christianity, it would probably help to know what church services are about.
“I addressed this explicitly. Quiet participation IS assent, and support.”
Except when it’s not. When, during a sermon, the preacher says “we,” he or she is referring to the body of the church, which the visitor would not identify with. That’s the thing, here – you do not have to identify with a group to observe what their practices are like. In fact, saying that just reveals your own ignorance, claiming to know more about Christianity’s morals than actual Christians, when you would refuse to set foot in a church.
“Hell, quiet non-participation flirts with being assent from a functional standpoint: ask any gay person in a state that banned gay marriage based on the popular votes of less than 50% of the population.”
Except churches are not political bodies. Sure, people may vote based on their religious beliefs. But going and listening to a church service quietly is nothing like refusing to vote. For a non-Christian, it’s research. Even if it was research on a group that’s “immoral.” Would you say it would be wrong for scientists to study, say, a tribe that practices self-mutilation without running in and telling them how wrong they were being?
[Third paragraph in its entirety]
I can honestly say I haven’t seen a more hateful thing said about any group ever before, and I’ve seen Fox News. Firstly, about this “employing human sacrifice” nonsense – for it to be “employed” by the church, it would have had to have been something that believers did at one point. They did not. Not only was the act itself advocated by Jewish religious leaders (who were very different from the Jewish leaders today, let me make that perfectly clear), it was carried out by secular law enforcement. Second, it isn’t “human sacrifice.” If anything, I suppose you could call it a suicide, since he went along with it, but it wasn’t any ritual. It might have been less symbolic if he had died of some sort of accident, but if he still came back from the dead, it would have served the same purpose.
Thirdly, comparing it to racism IS another exaggeration, just like the “murder all gays” one, because the belief on its own should not hurt anyone. You want to know what the main tenants of these “corrupt morals” are?
The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.’
I’m an atheist, but I have many Mormon friends. They have asked me to attend service with them on occasion, and I have often done so. The difference between them and Joyce is that they have absolutely no intention of converting me. They just want to hang out.
On one occasion, however, I ended up running into the bishop of their ward, who seemed ecstatic about seeing a new face. I think he saw me as a potential convert, because he kept telling me all of the great things about the church. Needless to say, my friends thought this was absolutely hilarious.
There’s no reason to invite her other than to try and convert her. If she just wanted to hang out, there are myriad less controversial and more fun places to do it.
How do you come to that conclusion? She likely goes every week, but doesn’t get to see any of her friends from school there. There’s no reason she wouldn’t just want to see more of her friends at a place she spends a lot of time at. Granted, considering her character, I’m thinking she is hoping that conversion will take place, but a simple invitation there doesn’t necessarily mean that the whole reason is to convert.
Another thought though, she probably doesn’t really know the people in the church she’s at, as it’s safe to say she’s no where near home. Seeing familiar faces when surrounded by strangers could easily be something she’d want, and not because it might mean they’ve converted.
I concede that there may be other mild factors contributing to wanting Dorothy to accompany her. I reject that those alone would be enough to get her to ask if she didn’t want to convert Dorothy too. I mean, it’s obvious that she knows her request is something Dorothy won’t like: she won’t even meet her eyes and her facial expression shows embarrassed discomfort over the pushiness of the request.
I’m sorry, but that wasn’t remotely pushy. :/ It’s perfectly normal for someone who makes a habit of attending Church to ask a friend who probably doesn’t care to come along. Honestly, this seems like it’s halfway between an enthusiastic invitation and a self-conscious request.
She probably does have a certain hope that maybe Dor will reconsider her theological position, but ultimately, it seems like she just wants the company. Of course, I’m basing this off of my understanding of the character, and these four panels, and so I’m just leaning toward her being moderate and reasonable, since we haven’t much of a reason to think otherwise.
Man, it’s church. It’s not going to kill Dorothy. Worst case, she’s going to be severely bored to mildly annoyed for an hour or so. Maybe she’ll hear something that goes against her beliefs or even basic logic, but maybe it’ll give her something new to think about. Even if you don’t end up converted, attending a religious service outside your comfort zone can be a world-broadening experience.
Unless Dorothy believes a pretty odd variant of atheism, she’s *certainly* going to hear something that goes against her beliefs (“god exists”, for starters). And unless she’s an apatheist or an atheist due to having the innocent ignorance of a newborn babe, she won’t hear anything that gives her anything new to think about. Everything any standard Christian preacher might say has already been said and heard, repeatedly.
Begbert, have you ever actually been to more than one church? With the things you’re saying, I’m guessing you just went to one or two different churches in your life, and decided “Yup. Every church, every Christian community, and everything that might be said by a Christian, is exactly like this.”
Dear Dorothy: It’ll be OK. Joyce puts the “Fun” in “Fundamentalist.” I am, perhaps unreasonably, hoping it’ll be a congregation that may be dogmatic, but isn’t dour.
As an aside: What are the odds the pastor’s son has fresh stitches on his face?
of course the experience all depends on WHAT church you go to, and I hope Joyce has at least scouted around Bloomington to find a nice group.
I know not everyone is religious but if you are serious about it you need to find the place that is best for you. Not every congregation is the same. I know that certain church’s are insufferable, extremely judgmental, and terrible to go to, while some are pretty laid back and accept others no matter what.
The church I still call my home church is like that. It’s why my sisters and I don’t go anymore, we were sick and tired of being judged because we were in a different money situation then everyone else. Family was very poor while I grew up, and everyone else had more than us. Quite sad, tbh
Okay, I’ve made quite a point about how empty the term Christian is in the US because of the diversity of beliefs that huddle under that tent, but this takes the cake. How can you seriously consider the message of Christianity and also believe you need to find the spiritual community you are most comfortable with for your religious needs? Shouldn’t you be seeking congregation that will lead you more correctly in your spiritual development regardless of whether you are comfortable with it or not? Otherwise doesn’t that just reduce church to a social activity?
Just because a person is judgemental and in a religion doesn’t necessarily mean they are trying to correct error they see in you. They may just be the kind that hates anything that doesn’t live up to their impossibly high expectations. Just look at Saturn’s experience, he was being judged because he was poor. That isn’t corrective in any way, that’s just looking down.
Also, how your errors are pointed out matter a lot more than whether they’re pointed out, as to whether you’ll correct them. If some one tells you how horrible of a person you are because you [insert reason here], chances are, you are probably not going to correct. Either you’ll get pissed, and rebel all the more, you won’t care, or you’ll wither under the criticism under the belief that you aren’t good enough and can’t improve. Very different from some one who actually is concerned for you, and wants to help you.
In the example by Spiffster, I’m more likely to correct my ways if the laid back group told me about it, than I would for the judgemental group. The judgemental group doesn’t care about me, I’m some one they look down on. The laid back group will accept me either way, but sees a way I could improve.
Or… it could mean that there are things not explicitly stated in the Bible that people disagree about. You can still grow in your spiritual development just the same, even in places with different doctrines. For example, I personally don’t believe in child baptism, because I think of baptism as something to be used as a public declaration of faith, not something necessary to salvation. But does that mean I wouldn’t be able to grow in my faith if I went to, say, a Catholic church? Not at all.
Plus, with what Spiffster actually said, the “bad church” he described would be detrimental to spiritual growth because of the people occupying it, so I’m not sure just what you disagree with.
The reason you don’t like Christianity in the United States Zoot is because of all the flavors? Sorry but it kinda goes with the territory around here in the States. We have Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, SOUTHERN Baptist, Quakers, Presbyterian, etc. And not only do these groups and more have their own ways of worship, but many also have their own beliefs to an extent that fall into the main groups but can differ due to location and congregation. It’s just the way things are. Falling under one umbrella and expecting others to follow it, especially when they live on the other side of the continent, let alone the world, can be strenuous and you can lose members. It’s just adapting the overall message.
Also I’m sorry to hear that Saturn. That’s under the same vein as the old tradition of “Wearing the Sunday Best” that drives me up the wall. People dressing extravagantly to make themselves look good, and then turning their noses at family’s who were not. Only doing this as a means to make themselves feel better about their troubled home life (or just to be snots, that also happens). If you’ve come to worship, that’s all that should matter, not dressing up so that you can smokescreen your family problems.
I have no particular dislike for Christianity anywhere. I have a problem with the term as it is used in the US because it has become meaningless. I can be a proponent of prosperity gospel, a latter-day saint, Baptist dissenter, a monophysite, a Swedenborgian spiritualist, a snake handler, a Christian Scientist, a Primitive Baptist, a follower of Jesus Christ Scientist (which is vastly different from a Christian Scientist), a Spirit Baptist, a Hudderite, a Davidian, probably a Rastafarian (though we are getting kinda far afield in identifying Christ by that point) or part of dozens of other mutually incompatible religious and call myself a Christian. By the point a term is inclusive of all these things it no longer means anything by itself. I ask my students which of them are Christians and almost all of them raise their hands, I read the Apostle’s Creed to them and none of them recognize or agree entirely with it. So, as an outsider, I cannot accept anyone’s claim to be the true Christian and some others to be false Christians. And when someone opines anything “as a Christian” I take it with a truckload of road salt.
How could that be either upsetting or a requirement for you? Was someone cutting off one of your fingers every time it didn’t feature in a comment? If so, you have an impressive overabundance of fingers.
What does the bus ad say? Something “God”. It’s not an atheist ad is it? The second line looks too short to say “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
To be fair, there’s no particular reason to believe that Ryan is any more local than Joyce is. And he doesn’t strike me as the moral enough type to frequent church without Father Father looking over his shoulder, so if he’s not local she should be okay.
Everyone’s arguing about the invitation. Joyce’s last line is what’s offensive. “That way I don’t have to tell my folks I’m fraternizing with the godless.” That’s basically “I’m embarrassed to have you as a friend, please fundamentally change your worldview for me.” Not to mention her use of godless here is basically a slur, calling Dorothy unclean. Not cool, Joyce. Not cool.
I don’t think you’re giving Joyce enough credit. Just because she doesn’t think her parents would approve of Dorothy’s beliefs doesn’t mean she’s embarrassed of Dorothy as a friend. Remember that Joyce is worried about worrying her parents and forcing her to leave the university. If I cared that much about my parents’ opinions, I’d sure want to be able to downplay things they might not approve of. She’s not demanding that Dorothy change her world view or else lose Joyce as a friend; she’s laying out an extremely hypothetical result.
God’s greatest gift to mankind is free will. everybody is free to do, say, think, believe anything they want to. just that there are consequences to some actions.
If someone wanted to believe that the universe is a giant jam donut controlled by a giraffe with 3 heads, and thus wore stilts and yellow t-shirts every tuesday, and this was their actual belief, they are free to do so. (please dont let this spawn a new religion)
the greatest sin therefore is to hinder another sentients free will.
also, not all christians believe in an afterlife, thus negating the need for them to do any “saving”
I’ll outline my personal beliefs for you, not something i do often, as they are outside mainstream religious thinking.
firstly, on the thorny topic of evolution, why would the existance of a greater power preclude the posibility of evolution. It is the creationist viewpoint I find flawed, the very notion of it screams to me “incest is ok with us”, buti’m not here to disparage other viewpoints, but to present my own.
What if a being of immense power and intelligence designed existance as we know it all before existance began. once the design was complete, hesheit created an explosion of matter and energy (the big bang) in a very specific pattern. the universe itself evolving from superheated gases. balls of matter forming to planets etc.etc. Life starting as the simplest cells —> complex organisms —> sentient beings
tldr: God caused evolution.
It is also my belief that God is dispassionate. hesheit’s there, hesheit can see us and hear us, he just doesnt care all that much about the minutae of our lives. You wouldnt call the president of the US if some kid breaks your window.
It is my belief that christ did exist, but he was just a man, a man inspired to present to people what he felt was a better way of living.
to me, God is neither good nor evil, hesheit is a force of nature
those are just some of my beliefs, I felt it necessary to present an alternate view, perhaps helping some of you to realis that life doesn’t fit into neat little boxes, so why should beliefs.
appologies for the grammar, this was all written from my mind to the keyboard with no editing inbetween.
Now take the next step and realize that you just described a useless god. Because you’re only giving it credit for starting events that do not need a god to start, it’s not required for anything, and there are no consequences for either its existence or non-existence. Apply Occam’s razor and you’re an atheist.
Truth be told, Dorothy seems the type to study up on stuff like this before coming to major decisions, it’s likely she previously was a follower of some religion but through her own decisions came to her disbelief in religion over all. Joyce’s heart may be in the right place, but she doesn’t quite realize the likely futility in this course of action.
I wouldn’t say it’s likely she was a follower of some religion. I do, however, agree that she’s probably gone through a period of religious investigation, whether approaching the subject from the inside or the outside. I’m not expecting Joyce to be changin’ any minds anytime soon either–at least not Dorothy’s.
I don’t have a problem believing what they want to believe. But sometimes they just to shut up about and I find myself feeling they need to more often lately.Mostly because I am a pagan. I tell my family this and they call me a satan worshipper and try to get me to go to church. I have actually lost christian friends due to this fact.
Now, one of these such events isn’t enough to bother me. But it happens ALL THE TIME. So by the time some non-pushy nice, private Christian makes a comment to me, I am so tired of hearing it, I act like a real prick.
On a side note, I often talk to the Mormons when they come to my door and they’re often friendly enough, but they are quite pushy and I personally find it very rude to sell your religion door to door like a vacuum cleaner.
I’m positively overwhelmed by the level of discussion this section has reached. Mr. Willis – you should be really proud of yourself, Sir.
And now for my grain of sand: I think human fallibility is inherent to being human, regardless of your personal beliefs or lifestyle. I’ve had different people from wildly different backgrounds try to “push” their beliefs onto me, albeit very kindly and gently.
One was a Christian that I had questioned out of curiosity, being a former Catholic myself.
Another one was a very, very atttractive lesbian girl I had pursued despite knowing she was gay, who in turn tried to hook me up with one of her male gay friends. (“Sort of walked right into that one, didn’t I.”)
And finally there were these two pot smokers I worked with, who -given my questions about pot and what it feels like- naturally tried to convince me that cutting out the middle man and experiencing it by myself was, like, totally the way to go, man, dude, dooderino.
Notice that each of these situations was actually started by me with my questions, curiosity, and/or boner-induced pursuit. In all three cases, things started out playfully, got a little weird for one or more of the implied at some point, and were eventually clarified through conversation.
I guess what I’m trying to say is if you are really into something that actually defines a big chunk of who you are, it’s only natural that you will try to get others into it. In your own mind, you’re only trying to share the goodness with them, and what’s wrong with that. Especially if they’re being all sorts of nosy and curious about it.
Or, you know, trying to bone you.
Finally, if only as a homage to my long-neglected Catholicism, I should confess that on at least one occasion, I have gone on really obnoxious, drunken, shouting anti-Christian tirades in front of good Christians who had never even touched upon the subject with me. Over dinner. As a guest. At their place.
Any way you look at it, you’ll have to agree that was one of the all-time low points in my life.
At some point, we are all guilty of trying to impose our views on others. Some people are more tactful or talented at it. Some people are actually right in doing it (think health campaigns). And somewhere in the middle of it all is human progress.
Church ain’t that bad. Seriously, it’s one hour and if you’re just a visitor people understand if you don’t say the words. But Joyce’s comments so far make me really worried about the way her parents have shaped their views around the faith.
For one, most real and actual churches recognize the difference between a younger person visiting with a friend and a new long-term congregant.
Also, there’s singing, and cannibalism-by-proxy, and hugs. Handshakes if you’re squeamish. What’s not to like?
Well, all churches aren’t created equal, people have a lot of fears and misunderstandings about Christianity due to how little people understand the differences that divide different sects and while many of these fears are unfounded, many aren’t and depending on what church you take them to.
The level of casualness in the attitude of the priests and laity, the sects doctrine, how open they are to new comers and willingness to encourage their curiosity all come into effect with the person interacting with a church and depending on how things go it can be a pleasant experience that at the least disproves a number of fears…or at worst, proves them all right and serves as a traumatic experience for them.
Ultimately, as I said, it really comes down to the church you go to because the people who congregate tend to set the feel of it for someone who doesn’t know the locale.
Loading ...
Don’t knock it until you try it Dorothy. You get wine.
Mostly at Catholic services… Joyce isn’t Catholic. Isn’t she some evangelical offshoot or Baptist or something? I guess I don’t know much about Baptists…
If that’s the case, they probably have grape juice or red kool-aid.
…Prrrobablly not kool-aid, now that I think about it.
It lemonade and sweet tea
Joyce’s parents might be hardcore Baptists, though I think her dad might be a little more than her mom is. The Baptist denomination has gotten pretty legalistic in most churches which really doesn’t bide well with some members in the congregation. If I’m reading Joyce right, I’d say her mother and her brothers may be a little on the Independent Baptist/Non-Denominational side which is how my family is. In fact most of our original church became like that before/during the split of that church. The new guy made everything so legalistic and weird when he came in and weeded out those who didn’t agree with him. It was either follow him or you’re not a Christian which is completely UN-BIBLICAL where it clearly says follow Christ and not man.
Anyways, back to the point, Joyce is being a concerned Christian trying to reach out to the unsaved.
Also for those wondering about the whole wine-thing, wine is primarily only served at Catholic churches, yes, though I think even they go mostly grape juice nowadays. Most other denominations serve only grape juice for communion which is held quarterly or monthly depending on the church and is reserved as a special event and not every Sunday. And then of course the crackers for the bread.
… new guy?
also catholic churches still mostly use wine. i cant speak for all, but every church i’ve been to either does wine or nothing
Nah, I’ve been on here almost a year now
Anyways, I’ve never been to a church that serves wine, haha! Makes me wonder how I’d do visiting a Catholic church. Never been to one. But guess that answers that
ah… i meant that as in “whos the ‘new guy’ that rocked the baptist church”
Now I get what you’re saying haha! Yeah, he practically lied on multiple issues to get in the church, one was the music and the other was on what kind of material he taught and who he got it from (which was Bill Gothard who is very legalistic. Not to be confused with the hymn writer Bill Gaither) the church held two votes which shouldn’t have happened and later on that caused a split just after the 20th anniversary of the church too.
“serves wine” isn’t exactly the right phrase for how it’s used. It’s more of an extremely minimal perfunctory sip, not really much more than wetting your lip. If anyone stumbles out of church, you can count on it being for some other reason (or at least from some other source).
But yeah, I’ve been on here almost a year now. I’ve even got an idea to combine one of my Ranger fanfics with this story arc.
I think he was meant moreso the the new guy in your church story. You said a new guy came in and didn’t introduce what position he had in the church or anyhting about him. I got the gist of what you meant though.
On another note, yeah churches are getting a lot more political.
When I went back home to Los Angeles a while back, my mother’s relatively new pasture got himself a section on the radio and he spread his negative viewpoints about teaching kids gay history. I was kinda shocked, I don’t like how a good chunk of the Black Community and our churches fight against the Gay Agenda, it ain’t quite the damn same as being Black but hell I think we’re missing the point is that people and events can be omitted from history simply because they revolve around homo-sexuality, like the fact that anal sex (sodomy) was illegal in the US till 1961, I never learned in high school. It’s not so much about the act of anal sex, it about the value behind making a consensual sex act illegal due to residual puritan values.
The irony of it all is that we strive as a people to be Black and different from our once oppressors, but we cling on to Christianity, but the reason why my parents and any other Black person with ancestry in the American slavery of Africans believe in Jesus Christ is because White people abducted our ancestors, separated them from their children, beat and raped the religion into the off spring of our forefathers.
There some good stuff in Christianity, really there is, but we just get so caught up in the Idol instead of the ideal. Its also like this in the bible I really want to read more, but the few passages I read, there was a pretty clear divergence between just being a good and loving person and in the next paragraph the tone would change any goos is redefined as being dressed in the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Man I wish I was back on my friends computer cause I had this cute Roz avatar that would went so well with that comment.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2011/comic/book-2/01-pajama-jeans/bus/#comment-48089
Look above that reply, thats also me. My comps been out of commission, and I’ve been borrowing my roommates old laptop. I finally got my comp fixed.
Yah know its weird that my two avatars had sex… and on camera none the less…
I’m just going to say that most churches are still against gay marriage including mine. But we are only against the action and not the people. We believe that the action is a sin and should not be allowed within the church. It’s spoken against in the Bible and even described as a disgusting, perverse change that people start to lust after each other. That’s all I’m going to say right now since I’m not well equipped to make an argument about it right now.
I’ve heard that most or all of the bits against it in the bible are either mistranslations or not very clear in what they’re talking about, to the point that the notion that they’re about gay sex at all (as opposed to, say, BDSM or something like that) is simply wild speculation. (Albeit wild speculation thought up generations ago and since codified through repetition.) If one does plain reads of the text and does further research, the ‘evidence’ either evaporates or at least becomes considerably more slippery.
(I’m not really the best guy to argue this either, so I’ll stop here.)
I was going to go on a rant, but I decided just to address this one point: If I were to say that I accept you, but I don’t accept your close relationship with your parents/sibling(s), how would that make you feel? (I can trot out bible verses too if you’d like)
I’m a lesbian and I’m married. Being married is a significant fact about myself, it’s not just some inane quirk like preference for drinking one cup of earl grey once a fortnight. It’s condescending and ignorant of Christians to say that they love me but they don’t approve of my relationship. Be honest- say that you hate me so much that you don’t think I deserve any sort of chance at familial happiness outside of my family of origin.
I’m not going to address your biblical points that you aren’t prepared to defend, you clearly aren’t very interested in them, and I find those parts of the bible dull at this point in my life.
@ R No way I would be able said it better myself.
But it sucks cause this kinda a bit of an anti-Christian circle jerk. And thats never right.
Even though there a lot of things that don’t sit well with me like the Bible’s limitless possibility of mistranslations and out right changes from the original text, Christianity’s cult like teachings, and the few but very loud ignorant followers, there still are some good values in it.
It may not be obvious through all the mess, but I think many followers of Christ, are like Joyce and at their core, they just want the same thing we and that most others want, to love and respect one another.
Now Imma end here.before this critique sandwhich becomes an open-faced double decker with chili and cheese on top.
Can we disagree on something without treating each other like dirt? R, you’re the only one who showed any prejudice there. Tim’s statement was respectful, and honestly, perfectly respectable. You came completely out of nowhere accusing him of hatred. It is not condescending for someone to disagree with you without disrespecting you.
Which is not to say I agree with him. I support LGBT very strongly, but that doesn’t mean I have to bite someone’s head off if they happen to think gay sex is wrong. (It simply isn’t the same thing as claiming superiority over or disrespecting someone for their sexual preferences.) So long as you treat people with respect, it doesn’t bother me that someone might believe homosexuality is wrong- even if I think the belief itself is more than a little silly.
I’m a Christian (non-denominational), and I usually consider myself a Conservative. I just happen to think there’s nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. To throw decent people who happen to disagree with you into a lump with bigots is nothing less than prejudice in its own right. You can debate the matter, and say you think their opinions are foolish and unfair, but that does not make them stupid and bigoted people.
I’m tired of LGBT advocates, as well as libertarians in general, who claim to fight for equality and rationality, and then go out of their way to perpetuate hatred. My opinions on religion and LGBT matters have been all over the place at different points in my life, but I’ve found that, no matter what you your position, there is someone there who agrees with you, and manages to unconsciously devote their every act of support to showing the worst of whatever it is you’re fighting for. Christians who cherry pick the teachings that are most convenient to them, to excuse their own actions, and people who bring the fight for equality full-circle back to prejudice.
Thanks David for backing me here. I am in no way a right wing propagandist and definitely not a left wing by any stretch of course. I never said I hated anyone for what they do, to hate someone is wrong and ungodly. I do happen to have a few friends that say they are ‘gay’ and one of them actually got married not too long ago in the summer. I also worked with a guy at KFC a couple years ago whom is also ‘gay’, though that relationship was completely strange and really embarrassing to witness, lol! And he was one of my managers at the time!!!! I actually respected the guy and was somewhat friends with him for a while until he left and dropped off the map.
All in all I don’t think it’s right how people say to ‘tolerate’ other religions and practices, but at the same time if I or any other Christian speaks anything Christian based or disagrees with an issue, then we’re automatically bashed for intolerance. If there was a such thing as a hypocritical sinner, that would be an example. But Jesus did say that those who spoke in his name would be persecuted, whether minimally or being killed like what is going on in the middle east.
Oh, and an answer to your post there begbert, it is true that there are some mistakes in the English translation, because so many English words have so many different meanings unlike the original texts from Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Unfortunately, it’s only been recently that’s been realized, but it’s not too late to correct them.
Hebrew was considered to be the perfect language from the time of Moses (Who wrote Genesis through Leviticus) and beyond and every letter had to be written correctly to a tee to make sure everything was followed and correct. Then when Greek came into the picture the texts were then translated into Greek since it was becoming one of the main languages back then and just in case multiple copies were made for it. It was also just as Latin was coming into play.
Also, Luke (who was a doctor in Jesus’ day and one of his disciples) did most of the writing for Paul’s journeys and his book. And remember, doctors HAVE to be precise. So by what is known as 100 A.D., all the original texts and most of the New Testament was translated into all of these three languages. It’s when the languages started splitting, things became confusing and the church knew they had to get texts translated into those different languages. So my multiple x7 (maybe) great grandfather, John Reynolds, translated the King James Version, the most known version and William Tindall Study Bible (Not very widely known and is one that my grandpa studies most often. He also studies the original texts, mostly Hebrew and Latin)
Well that’s all I got for now.
It’s only guessed that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts. The two books were definitely written by the same author, but the identity of that author remains unknown. It’s only decided to be Luke by Church tradition. It’s most likely both of those books were written by somebody who never met Paul, long after his death, since details of Acts don’t line up with what Paul says about himself in the letters he wrote.
@Khrene Cleaver – I’m not anti-Christian. Christianity and homophobia are not synonyms, despite what anti-gay groups would have you believe. There are many Christian churches that are very supportive of gay rights, including marriage equality. I can generate a list if you’d like.
@David – I did not call him a bigot. His belief (which is not unique to him, I’ve heard it a lot before) is what is hateful, not him as a person. I don’t think he was aware of why it a hateful belief, so I thought it would be helpful to illustrate why. I was a conservative Catholic as a teenager, and a lot of the more intolerant beliefs I held were because I hadn’t been exposed to anything but straw-man arguments of other points of views and I had no idea how they affected actual people. From what he’s said, it sounds like he has very limited experience with gay people, so I think at least I’ve exposed him to the point of view of a married somewhat-older (~30) gay person who is addressing his actual argument. I had assumed he wanted to talk about it, as he brought up gay rights apropos of nothing in the comments of a gay-friendly comic.
For the sake of clarification: What level of support from others is required for my gratitude and silence about matters important to me? I’d like you to clarify what you require to not be offended, if that’s okay with you.
The fact that I’m married has allowed my wife to have access to quality life-saving medicine and treatment for conditions that would otherwise have put her in life-long debt at best and would have killed her at worst. Also marriage isn’t something we’re doing for show, we’re finally buying a house together this year and are planning on adopting a non-infant out of foster care as we want to give a happy home to a child in need. I can’t understand why you or anyone would be bothered that it offends me when people disrespect my family and see my marriage as some minor thing, especially when they don’t seem very interested in why they are doing so.
@ Tim – I don’t like it when anyone’s publicly inappropriately demonstrative with affection too. I don’t think about other people (gay or straight) having sex either. I think that’s very normal. 🙂
Also, I’m a history nut- medicine was much different back in the day than currently, I wouldn’t rely on the fact that Luke was a doctor, training requirements varied from medical school to virtually nothing depending on where he worked. That said, he was a wonderful historian, and he did a lot of great research when he authored his texts (Luke and Acts). The Gospel of Luke is my favorite actually.
I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. “Be honest- say that you hate me so much that you don’t think I deserve any sort of chance at familial happiness outside of my family of origin,” was the phrase that made me twitchy.
While I don’t see Tim as being bigoted per se, it does make me cringe that he (I will assume that Tim is male) wrapped gay in quotations as if to say that we choose our sexuality. It is rather offensive to me, as I have never consciously made the choice to like other men, nor would i have if I had the choice to. That being said I am proud of who I am as part of the LGBT community. Also, one other thing that is cringeworthy is the use of “Gay Agenda” in Khrene’s post. Our only agenda is equality and respect. Anyone claiming otherwise is an extremist. The phrase “Gay Agenda” in itself is demonizing, and makes a statement sound bigoted even if, as in this case, it is not. So be careful when using this phrase because it can make people assume that you think gay people are terrorists pedophiles who are out to recruit your children….and the gay community generally doesn’t take well to that haha.
I respect the right to religion…but I have to say that I believe that the right to marry should be guaranteed as a human right in America, because America has seperation of church and state and because anything other than that would be a theocracy. Which we clearly are not. Anyone who uses their voting power to deny rights to LGBT people are allowing their beliefs to direct their power in a bigoted way. Which is why I don’t think people should vote with their religious views, and instead should vote in a strictly secular way, while still practicing their religious views during personal worship. Even if i personally disagree with something, I try to seperate my values from what is best for the country as a whole, and what gives equal, human rights to the country as a whole. Just my two cents.
I agree that, in any political or emotionally charged issue, one should be very cautious about any unintentional connotations in their wording. Especially when your actual intentions are causing enough tension already.
And, to be fair, there is a significant portion of the LGBT movement whose agenda also includes “demonize anyone who disagrees with us”. Every group has its crazies, you just have to remember that they almost never make up the foundation of the group.
The problem with your ideal of voting is that most people who hold moral values believe that if their values were held in law, it would be best for society. It isn’t theocracy for religion to have a certain amount of influence on the government- and, as the USA is a republican democracy with a very large percentage of Christians in its population, Christianity will continue to have influence.
Someone who believes homosexuality is immoral usually believes there’s more to it than just “the bible says so”- they also believe there’s some sort of detriment inherent in it, even if they only believe that as rationalization for the former belief. Try to see it from their perspective: they honestly believe that it would be for the good of everyone if homosexuality were restricted.
I don’t think that makes much sense. I also don’t think it makes much sense for abortion to be used a birth control, but I have to respect the “pro-choice” position, just as I have to respect “anti-gay” movements, so long as they also show respect.
Depends on the denomination and the part of the country. Churches that use actual wine are relatively rare in the South, for example.
It has been a long time since I took communion (happy agnostic now, thanks very much) but I don’t remember getting wine or grape juice at all. OTOH, I have reason to believe our priest was a little weird.
Catholic churches are supposed to only use wine (Jesus didn’t say “take this grape juice/koolaid … it is my blood”). The Catholic Church is what kept the US vineyards in tact during Prohibition.
My father’s answer to this was “Grape Juice is basically wine- the alcohol isn’t the important part.” I know very little of the chemical differences between wine and grape juice, so I don’t have an opinion to throw into the ring. It’s mostly just symbolic in the Baptist churches I go to, though, and I don’t think anyone would care if you just dropped purple food coloring into a bit of sugar water. (Well, they would, but only because that would be really weird…)
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which leads them to be purists about the materials used in the Eucharist. For example, I can’t take communion because it has to have gluten in it, even if it makes me sick. It’s one of the big dividing points between Catholics and Protestants. It’s interesting, but more as an academic point of view to me.
Er, I haven’t been since Easter, but my parents’ Lutheran church definitely serves wine and always has. Every week. And they’re not the only one in the area.
But then, Lutheran is basically Catholic Light. So, maybe it’s just those two that tend to do wine, and a lot of other Protestants don’t?
Lutheranism is the first Reformation-based offshoot of Catholicism. It’s ironically one of the closest to Catholicism these days (it probably helped that the Catholic response to some of the grievances was to address them, through the formation orders like the Jesuits, etc). The Church of England is also pretty close to Catholicism. Sadly I know about 10x more about Reformation era denominations than current ones.
😀 Cool, i learn something new every day. I wasn’t sure about whether Lutherans held communion (with wine) every week 🙂 Thanks for sharing 🙂
Catholic and Episcopal… and maybe Lutheran? I’m not sure about that one. Liturgical churches 🙂 But as far as I know, no grape juice for either of the first two.
I was raised baptist, then everyone but me in my family (I was already away from home) converted to Catholicism. I ended up happily in the Episcopal church 🙂
The Episcopalian church that my parents attend and that I went to before coming out of the broom closet (pagan) has real wine at communion.
Presbyterians – at least the Presbyterian churches I’ve been to – have both wine and grape juice, and let you choose.
Mormons don’t even have grape juice, they only have water.
This concludes my expansive knowledge of non-Catholic communion practices.
The exact nature of the Eucharist varies between denominations and sects withing denominations for quite a wide variety of reasons theological, historical and practical. Wikipedia has an article on the topic that matches what I know of the practices within most denominations.
One thing that seems unknown, or at least uncommented upon, in the comments here is that some Christian groups practice closed communion. That said, considering what we know of Joyce, I’d expect her to be of a denomination that, if the Eucharist is offered, it will be grape juice and an open communion.
Very well said, thanks for the info.
Anyways, I’m glad this conversation didn’t start a huge argument, haha! It was kept civil by all sides, certainly a refreshing change in this topic.
I didn’t even know that Mormons had any type of communion service. Unless I’m reading that wrong, lol. 🙂
She probably has, hence why she’s an atheist .
She has probably attended before. Even if she grew up in an atheist family, which isn’t likely in Indiana, it’s easy for individual members to get roped into going with a friend or a date, as happened here.
They gave us grape juice instead of wine. That’s actually how I learned what grape juice tastes like.
The most interesting thing for me when I was little was trying to figure out where God was in the church. I mean, they said it was God’s HOUSE so I figured that He HAD to be in there somewhere. I was convinced He was playing hide-and-go-seek with everyone.
…I was an imaginative child. O_O
I think that’s a natural response for a child. 🙂
Maybe. But I think the funniest thing was when I asked what the holy water was used for. I asked because I was thirsty and wanted to drink it (I was going to grab one of the decorative chalices and take a swig). But when they told me it was God’s water, I thought “Well, I’d better leave it alone then. That water belongs to God.”
It didn’t really answer my question, but it satisfied my intent behind the question and thus ended my interest. I still wonder if holy water tastes any different from regular water. Maybe I should drink some.
Holy water tastes like salt and people’s fingers. At least that’s what my dad told me. I did not ask him how he knew that.
Not right out of the pedestal, though. I’d just buy a small flask or something.
You only get wine after you’ve received the first sacrament of Baptism and the second sacrament of First Communion through the Catholic chuch. If you drink the wine or imbibe the host without having the proper sacraments, it is a heresy.
Not only First Communion, but each Sunday at every communion, as I understand it.
So their church date will be around 2013?
Wow, you might be right! Took a year just to get through almost 3 days I think
it’s been about a week.
This story arc is Saturday. Sunday morning will come in a few weeks.
2016
Dorothy feels so bad she needs TWO commas! 😀
I wonder if Willis will fix it.
If Willis used a semicolon; as forcefully demonstrated here, it would have worked better. On the other hand, Dorothy seems like she’d have awkward pauses while speaking.
Doh, don’t listen to me, the first part of the sentence is a dependent clause. Without the second part (at the end of the sentence) it doesn’t complete itself logically. Dorothy’s awkward interjection just so happens to be in a awkward sentence with correct structure. No fix is require.
woah… i wish i knew things about english. unfortunately i used to nap in that class to get well rested for physics
I wish I could like/+1 this comment…
Yes he fixed it.
Random fact of the day- the plural of comma is commata 🙂
If you refer to commas as commata, you are going to get strange looks even from professional, published writers.
Commata were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. It is a bit of an archaic word.
Okay, yes, this suggestion of Joyce’s will probably bring some hate, but considering how naive she is, she approached this… fairly maturely. It’s only if she likes what she hears, after all…
Please don’t hate her. Look at the adorable derpface!
“I’d love it if you came to church with me so I don’t have to tell my parents I’m associating with the godless”
Sorry not enough cutederp face in the world to make that easy to swallow =/
It’s not an insult, it’s an assessment of the situation 😛
One further, it was postscript. “Hey, we’d love to have you at this party!” “Oh cool, I’ll be there.” “Awesome. Plus, y’know, this means I can say I was out with you last night, so the RA won’t be suspicious.”
Nothing to swallow here – unless you are allergic to all things religious.
I dunno. It’s not like Joyce is saying “I can’t associate with you because you’re atheist.” She’d just like to put her parents’ minds at ease. And I actually bet they don’t mind nearly as much as Becky does.
Considering in It’s Walky her mom prayed to God to subtley let Joyce and Walky know to stop “pulling it out, or doing it in the ass or whatever” at a dinner prayer so that she could get grandkids, I doubt she cares at all… but this is DOAverse, and not Walky!verse, so yeah….
I seriously doubt that DOA!JoyceMom wants Joyce pregnant right now.
I think the Joyce in WV was in her mid-late 20s when her mother prayed for that, DoA Joyce is like 17-18, so I doubt the mother would be expecting grandkids from her until her education is complete at least.
Not until she’s married. She’s there for her MRS degree, after all.
Yeah its going to bring hate because well even then nicest Christians or those style of beliefs feel it necessary to push when ever they get the chance, regardless of naivety its a dick move and people know its wrong and not fairly mature.
p.s. pushing in the first place shows more hate than the reaction to it
You have any notion of why Christians feel it’s necessary to push it? Because from their perspective, they are trying to save you from something horrible. I suppose if someone believes someone else is drowning, it would be a “dick move” to throw them a life preserver when they’re standing in the middle of the sidewalk? It may be annoying to you, but as long as they’re not doing it for brownie points in their sect, they’re acting honorably. Opposite of a “dick move.”
The reason for that is, so that you don’t end up in a lake of fire for all of eternity. What Joyce is doing is just reaching out like what Christians are supposed to do and not force it down one’s throat if they don’t want it
That would be a good analogy, if Christianity, and religion in general, was actually true.
We’re not talking about doctrine here, we’re talking about intent, which is entirely separate. “Dick move” means someone’s acting like a jerk intentionally. That’s not what’s going on in the case of evangelism, most of the time.
But the Christian believes it is true.
I’m a Christian and I’ve never once tried to push my beliefs on anyone else. And all I ask in return is that others treat me in-kind.
Your post is rather presumptuous.
What are your beliefs, then? Have you merged deism with Christianity or something? According to the Bible, you’re leaving them to rot, you know. Just be true to what you believe. That’s all I ask.
Personally, I won’t object if others try to push their beliefs on me. I’m not that sensitive about it – worst case, it’s a minor annoyance, second worst case I learn something.
I have a very clear notion of why they do push and thats the exact problem with it, it by passes logic and social skills and other basic tenets. If i want to learn something i can easily study online or in books or choose to go to church myself or a mosque or a temple etc.
Yes its a subjective reaction to the situation personally i am opposed to it (the pushing not the beliefs) maybe its because where I live its frowned upon behaviour and organised religion is an anathema in some ways. but stuff like that is a cheap shot more so than mormans knocking on a door. Im talking it more of from a social perspective that a belief system
p.s.
sry about the grammar errors at the end
question. if i asked you if you wanted to attend a lecture on string theory would you be offended?
I can imagine that a lecture on string theory would involve knowing a great deal with physics and certain other sciences.
A layperson is unlikely to understand most of what is being said, thus get bored very quickly.
String theory generally doesn’t include claims about a person’s moral worth or threaten eternal burning punishment, so they’re hardly equivalent.
Unless I’m really out of date on my physics.
I’ve had people push stuff on me, too. Take any significantly represented belief on the planet – Christianity, Islam, Scientology, atheism, whatever – you’re going to find people everywhere who push things.
I find it about as threatening as an insult, though – that is to say, not at all. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent” (Eleanor Roosevelt), and no one can irritate you with their evangelism without your consent. It’s like door to door salesmen… personally, I’m not so much irritated by them as I am sad for their plight. I wouldn’t wish that line of work on anyone.
That reminds me, a couple weeks ago there were students at my college holding big signs. One of them had something along the lines of “believe in Jesus” on one side and on the other side said “to save yourself from hell”. There were other variations but all of them meant the same message.
They do these surveys every now and then of people in which they not only say what their general belief but also have to explain their beliefs and the beliefs of several other faiths. Atheists in these polls track significantly more knowledgeable about Christianity than Christians do about Christianity. Why? Because of disestablishmentarianism, essentially. The divorce of religious belief from civic responsibility plus the strong historic force of Protestantism (and Christianity in general) has made Christian the default position for people in the US. So much so that regardless of the specifics of their beliefs (which vary considerably from any Christian denomination’s doctrine) most US residents believe that what they believe is Christian. In the US someone telling you that he or she is a Christian, has made a statement that is nearly completely devoid of content.
Johannhowitzer just quoted Eleanor Roosevelt in a webcomic comment.
Johannhowitzer is my hero.
I just feel that everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what they do and don’t want to believe.
I have no problems discussing spiritual beliefs with others. Just as long as they’re not salesmen about it, y’know?
asking someone to go to church with you isnt forcing them to become christians.
contrary to popular beliefs we don’t kidnap people and brainwash them as they come through the doors. anyone who goes to church is quite capable of walking away at any time and never coming back
You only say that because you haven’t been to Joyce’s church.
If i the person asking me knew it ran completely opposite to everything that I personally defined my life by yes i would consider that personally rude. myself personally no but I dont really know enough about string theory yet and I would be bored
No but some people consider the indoctrination of youth as brainwashing its very hard for them to walk away but then parents have the rights blah blah im neutral on that topic . but look I dont hate theists probably more than 60% of my friends are theists and they bascially would agree with me on this pushing anything sucks like those damm people who always try and get you to sign of for the wildlife society or Greenpeace when you walking in the street it might be a good thing but if we want we can find our own path to it
It’s a shame that you expect everyone to pre-vet their beliefs with you before attempting to engage you with their own.
There is a difference between street preaching (which this isnt im using this as an example) and have a reasonable discussion with someone especially a friend. I love talking and learning new things about everything and anything with people i just dislike being preached at as your welcome to dislike my dislike on this @ Valdrax
How do you feel about product placement in movies and webcomics?
When its really crudely obvious its kinda tacky and unwanted but I have seen it be reasonably amusing before and in one TV series I saw it add to it tremendously to the quality of the show. thats the most honest answer i can think off ^^
Yeah but what Joyce just did was the equivilant of asking a vegetarian to eat beef with you to make something up to you…
Actually, it’s closer to asking her to come to a steakhouse. She doesn’t have to get a steak (or participate) she just would have to look and see if it’s something she could enjoy. Assuming she’s never had a steak/been to church before.
Okay, but salesmen don’t make you buy anything, either, so your analogy kinda defeats your point.
No they dont make you but it works some marketing campaigns increases sales by upto 30%. It plants ideas and emotional links in the brain and memory asssociation they dont have to force because it works subconsciously well enough but dont think its a great analogy for religion
If that’s true, I doubt it’s by design. Businesses’ lifeblood is revenue, so they are driven to make ads as viral as possible. Religions’ lifeblood may be followers, but followers don’t expire except through death, unlike revenue which expires through overhead and other expenses. And followers often leave families behind. Thus if there’s some psychological “trick” in evangelism technique, it’s probably accidental.
Also, all things are psychological, from birth to death. The things that convinced you religions aren’t worth believing in are psychological, more or less. The things that have influenced me to my current philosophical position have been psychological. Think anything else, you’re fooling yourself. 🙂
Im not I wasn’t the one using that originally analogy I said I agreed with you in that its a very imperfect analogy o.o ?
That “you’re fooling yourself” was based on an indirect “you” which was more an expression or idiom than an intent to direct my last sentence at you personally, for example: “If -you- did x, -you’d- expect y.”
I don’t “force my views” on anyone, but I do my best to act as Jesus did when he was on the earth. If my friends ask about my religion I’ll tell them my beliefs, and will defend them if someone tries to tell me why I’m wrong. That said, I don’t mind a good debate, and if someone brings up good points or things I hadn’t thought of before I don’t reject them without thinking about it. IF they’re being civil about it.
When I was in high school, I had a literature class with a VERY fundamentalist Christian and three or four Atheists. One of the plays that we read in the class (called M. Butterfly) took place during the Korean War and was extremely racy, with scenes of homoeroticism, constant innuendo, and rampant swearing. The message of the play was that even though America thought that it was subduing Korea, Korea actually was letting America believe what they wanted and spying on them instead. The Fundie in my class balked at the reading, refusing to read aloud and going so far as to complain to the school board about the teacher’s choice. However, since it was a college-level course, the school board overruled her complaints. When we finished reading the play, the first words out of her mouth were “This play should never have been written. How can people write this filth?” The atheists and I were chatting after class about it, and I said “I understand her viewpoint, but at the same time I realize the play *needed* to be written that way, so that the message stuck with the audience. Just because it conflicts with your beliefs doesn’t mean it’s filth, it just means that you have to set aside your emotions and judge it analytically. I mean, it certainly didn’t offend ME that much, and I’m as Christian as they come.” One of the guys chuckled at that and said, “Well, yeah, but that’s because you’re one of the most open-minded, unobnoxious Christians I know.”
TL;DR People have their own beliefs, and when you try to tell them they’re doomed because they don’t believe what you do it’s not a minor annoyance; it’s downright rude and obnoxious. Jesus led by example and taught all those who CAME TO HIM TO LEARN, and we should too.
There’s a difference here, though. Christians I’ve talked to aren’t all like, “believe like I do or go to hell.” Yes, that would be rude. Rather, they say something like, “I’m concerned about you. What I believe says this and this, and what it means for you is that it’s critical for you to believe it too. I love you, so I want to do everything I can to spare you the consequences of not believing this, even if it means risking our friendship.”
Rudeness is very often in wording.
Just because you put a bow on it doesn’t make shit stink any less. The fact is that no matter how it’s worded, when people are told “You need to believe this” when they don’t think they do, they get angry. Maybe you’re one of the lucky few who has a zen outlook on things, but just because YOU don’t feel offended when someone tries to convert you doesn’t mean EVERYONE does. You need to show people that you respect them, and to do that you need to allow them to believe what they do while acting on your own principles. If they decide “Hey, this guy has it together, I wonder what his secret is?” and come and ask you about it, then by all means feel free to tell them about your beliefs.
The problem with organized religion in general is that people outside the religion have come to the conclusion that each member has a “quota of converts” to fill, and that we care less about “saving” them than we do about their actual well-being. It’s not entirely true, of course, but the fact is that people are less open to comments like “Here’s what I believe, and here’s why you should believe it too” because all too often it’s done without regard for the person’s willingness to listen.
I meant to put “more” instead of “less” in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Damn you, Willis! *shakes fist*
No. I always viewed spreading the word as taking on an informational role, and these days the information is readily available to any and all with or without my help (længe leve internettet). So me not pushing Christianity doesn’t “leave them to rot”. The information is all there, and it’s very readily available at this point. And if they’re really devoted to learning all they possibly can, they can pursue a Th.D.
The way I see it, I’ll talk about religion anywhere, with anyone, anytime. But it’s just not my job to run around re-spreading that which has already attained global distribution and has essentially universal accessibility.
The responsibility to spread the word was a reflection of a period when Paul’s epistles and word of mouth were about all you had to inform you about Christianity. Back then if you didn’t actively spread the religion it was going to die out. We’re well past that point now. Peoples’ souls are on their own heads now. I’m busy with my own, and it’s hard enough to manage by itself.
Look, Howitzer, Christianity is the most well known religion in the world. There aren’t going to be any people hanging around california, or ohio or indiana or whatever who will go to hell because they never knew any better, and if only you had let andy the athiest know he would have embraced God, for he just didnt know it existed.
Past that sending someone to eternal damnation through no fault of their own sounds like some made up tacked on crap to me.
Along with sending homosexuals to hell. Of all the stupid crap to eternally damn someone for, its how they choose to express love?
Yeah not buying it. Sounds like vestigial crap added on to serve a purpose that has long since been obsolete.
God judges the worth of a man…. And I dobt see him placing a child molesting priest in heaven and a upstanding athiest in hell. That sounds retarded, not what comes to mind when you think of omnipotence.
God judges, Not a preacher, and certainly not some screeching hate filled jerk that seems to always end up on youtube shoving the ‘word’ down everybodies throat.
Ugh…those guys can jump off a cliff
Or better yet they can jump onto blind blobfishes yard.
Heh, that would be hilarious.
Joyce was starting to grow on me, now I don’t like her again -___-
That’s a very sad thing.
Its the same are disliking a TV show because of the way they change to plot or characters hows that sad ? whats sad is what the did to ‘The office’
She was starting to be a independent, tough, strong girl with innocence out the wazzoo, and it took a LOT to get me to like her after the ‘I’M GOING TO BEAT JOE UP BECAUSE HE LOOKED AT ANOTHER GIRL” Bit..
And then BAM D8 back to the religion
She can’t be independent, tough, strong, AND religious?
She can be, with a little character development. I’m looking forward to it.
Nope. All Christians are pussies apparently.
I don’t think she’s independent, tough or strong yet. She showed the potential to be it in the arc where she got drugged. Her reaction afterwards when she was no longer in danger was to pretend it didn’t happen and forget about it. That is not something an independent, tough or strong person would do.
Eh, asking someone you know isn’t your religion, and has shown no interest in your religion, to go to church with you in an attempt to convert them is a dick move, even if she did walk right into that one.
She never said she expected Dorothy to convert, Joyce is taking Dorothy up on her offer.
Dorothy pretty much begged Joyce to name a favor. And Joyce thinks church will be to Dorothy’s benefit, so it’s hardly as selfish a favor as Joyce could make it – just a couple hours of Dorothy listening to something Joyce thinks will be to Dorothy’s benefit.
If he had asked her to go to cinema with Joyce, to a film Dorothy thinks will hate, but Joyce believes she might love, that’d be roughly the same.
I don’t see where she’s being a dick about anything.
Under normal situations I would 100% agree. However, one of the base tenants of Joyce and Dorothy’s relationship appears to be that they wont try to convert each other.
That being said it is probably an important step in their friendship, or will be as long as Joyce accepts it when Dorothy, quite inevitably, does not instantly jump on the god wagon. It paves the way to actual respectful discussion about their separate beliefs rather then electing to ignore them.
Okay, now that you’re done seeing this from Dotty’s perspective, why don’t you try Joyce’s on for a few tenths of a second?
According to what she believes, if she doesn’t try to convince Dorothy, Dorothy will end up in hell. Joyce is being as philanthropic as philanthropic can be here – she is doing the best she knows to make Dorothy as happy as possible, without regard to whether her offer may jeopardize their friendship. For all she knew, Dorothy could have reacted… like you!
Also to consider, perhaps Joyce is not actively trying to convert Dorothy (though it would definitely be a nice bonus). Maybe Joyce doesn’t want to go to a new church for the first time all by herself. If it turns out she doesn’t like the parish, at least she’ll have gotten to spend the morning with her friend.
That’s… actually more selfish than I first thought she was being. Of course when spending time with friends is concerned, be as selfish as you like. 🙂
I know Joyces perspective, but it’s still a dick move. People do plenty of dick things because they don’t see it as dickish.
By “like what you hear,” I’m guessing you don’t mean what if I find the pastor’s voice warm and seductive, prrrrrr…..
“the only boy who could ever reach me, was the son of a preacher m–”
oh wait. what if douchebag mcdaterape’s dad is the priest at the church they go to…?
Remember Joyce, Jesus often hung around with the ‘godless’ when he was last on Earth.
Christians tend to forget things that inconvenience them, like how Jesus was warm and loving to a Prostitute and drew her to the faith by support and not judging her..
You know instead of calling her a godless heathen
Ain’t just Christians who do that, honey.
Ah, let it pass. It’s typical of “us vs. them” thinking – the other people are always the ones with the faults. People’s people.
i don’t think that was an “us vs. them” statement as much as a “we’re all guilty one way or another” statement
I was referring to Janos, not Laura.
Everyone has faults. I think your fault is saying that because it’s not just Christians who have faults, it doesn’t matter if Christians also have faults.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who are Christians who do not act in the spirit of the religion and forget how it came about. They forget the true tenants of the faith for one reason or another.
It’s one thing to have a fault. It’s another to have a fault that contradicts your religion which you go around essentially bragging about. Note: you is in the general sense here. People who claim to be Christian are asking to be judged by a higher standard. If they can’t follow their own faith, why should someone outside the faith respect them?
Or the fact that the part of the bible that tells them that homosexuality also tells them certain…
Unfortunate things.
Or the part about not eating sea food, or that Women that get raped can be stoned for being wretched sinners D8
On the issue of clean vs unclean foods, fishes with scales were OK, things like squids, eels, sea urchins, sharks and so forth were all desinated unclean.
As was Bacon.
The Old Testament stuff still exists, but you have to remember that Paul felt that those laws were only for Jews, them being a Covenant only between the nation of Israel and God. Paul stressed often that Gentiles shouldn’t feel required to follow Jewish laws and customs, and that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for their salvation.
Though that may seem an awful convenient loophole to outsiders, you’re not gonna “gotcha” many Christians by pointing out these bits of Old Testament. They know about them, and they no longer apply.
The sexuality laws are mixed in with all the other laws. People shouldn’t be able to pick through the ones they believe only apply to Jews, and use the rest to condemn their fellow Gentiles.
Admonitions against certain kinds of sex are not exclusive to the Old Testament. Paul too had words against banging your own gender. Paul’s actually the only dude in the Bible who mentions girl-on-girl, rather than only boy-on-boy.
How DARE Paul try to take away my lesbians!!!
Paul’s opinion on Jewish law is fairly well supported by the Jewish laws set down in the old testament talking about how Gentiles are unclean.
That seems to suggest to me that those laws are not meant for the people they’re warning against 😉
Well, they’re unclean ‘cuz they eat pork and worship strange gods and have unclipped wangs. Those are all cleanable things. Some of Israel’s greatest Old Testament heroes were foreigners taken in. There’s Ruth, for example, who ended up being the great grandmother of King David.
Of course, Ruth had to begin following Jewish law. Similarly, there was a faction in the early church which believed, as Christianity was spawned from Judiasm, that converts to Christianity must first convert to Judiasm. Paul obviously disagreed.
Bacon is a seafood now?
The more you know… 😛
I have good news for some Catholics next Lent.
And Pizza is a Vegetable! Everyone wins!
i really don’t understand why they decided to call pizza a vegetable. going by their absurd reasoning, shouldn’t it be a fruit?
You’re confusing the culinary world with the biology world. In the culinary world, fruits are sweet and vegetables are savory. In the biology world, fruits contain seeds and vegetables don’t exist.
Well, as Ayumu “Osaka” Kasuga astutely observed, the word “dolphin” in Japanese is written as “sea pig”. So I suppose that you used to get a little sea bacon with every can of tuna.
Also you get “river pig” from puffer fish, so it seems. So there are two kinds of sea bacon which are conceivable.
AQUATIC BACON!?!?! The Japanese just make shit cooler and cooler don’t they?
I can remember back when I was a kid in Church and the pastor often warned against becoming like the Pharisees who used their ‘godliness’ as a way to make themselves feel superior to others rather than as a means of saving souls.
Yeah, luckily Christians are better than those darn Pharisees. ;-D
The only thing I remember from back when I was a kid in church was drawing TRON lightcycles on the prayer cards. Well, that and always wanting to be the first one to put down the kneeler when it was time to kneel.
The last thing I remember from the last time I went to church was when it came time to wish peace to each other and frantically looking about to decide who I wanted to shake hands with so I didn’t have to shake hands with oily guy who was next to me.
I’m not really the best Catholic…
also she wasn’t a godless heathen, she was a jew like jesus
So? He still wasn’t all “bongo I hate you you are nothing but a prostitute I am above you be gone”
Or acted like he was better than her either
most christians don’t do that either. the fact that you’re most likely basing these statements on some loons you see on tv or possibly around wherever you live is just about as closed minded as you’re accusing christians of being
Unfortunately, many people do act like that, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Real Christians can’t afford to put up with that garbage and should set the record straight whenever possible.
Generally, the person talking loudest becomes the face of the group to other groups. Also, the person talking loudest is usually the one the rest of the group wishes would just shut up and stop giving them a bad name.
Yeah, go on you tell all those false Christians that they ain’t real Christians until they think just like you do. Put them in their place, Shame them and bar the kingdom of heaven to them. maybe you could go to their funerals with signs saying how they are doomed to hell for following false prophets. That’ll show ’em.
Dude thats just disrespect man, you’re kinda twisting up Laura’s words.
Yes she(?) said the extremist were false Christians, but what you’re doing is lumping her and other more moderate Christians in with the extremists and the ignorant. Laura waswere trying to separate her and her like-minded people from the extreme and be less polarized and more accepting of less pious beliefs, but you had bee polarized yourself and attack her.
Point is you’re kinda being that guy everyone else wants to shut up, the very equivalent to the people you despise because you’re needlessly disrespecting the others… not even opinions, this was just a statement.
I can’t explain your disrespect any better than I have.
What I was doing was saying that she is no better position than those others to determine who is and who is not a true Christian. When you label those you disagree with being wrong not in their positions but because they are getting their faith wrong (“Those guys over there aren’t real Christians,we’re the real Christians”) you are engaging in precisely the sort of bigotry that she accused the other side of having. If you consider yourself to be a Christian and you have a disagreement with someone else who is a proclaimed Christian it is not fair to simply haul off and label that person a false Christian. It is bigotry and it leaves the outsider nothing to go on since both groups claim to have an exclusive lock on the essential quality of being Christian.
The ones /I/ had to grow up with certainly were like that…
But that’s the thing – personal, anecdotal evidence does not define a group. It’s just like when Fox News proclaims all Muslims as terrorists. Their limited experience with Muslims suggests it, so of course they’re going to bongo and moan about a mosque being built near Ground Zero.
If you say “well all the ones I know are like that,” especially when you clearly don’t want to spend time with any Christian, you’re acting like the kind of person you hate.
You can say I act like” The people I hate” When I force a 16 year old to get married to the 24 year old that got her pregnate and proceed to beat her in private.
=/
Holy shit you didn’t read my post at all.
I said personal, anecdotal evidence does not define a group. And the only thing you can respond with is personal, anecdotal evidence.
Janos, you are stereotyping. If you honestly think all Christians are terrible because of the few you know (and I’m sure even those you don’t know personally) then you just simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
And if you’re not aware of the sizable number of atheists who are like that, you need to spend more time online.
Janos, who was that prostitute you mentioned? In scripture, only two women who were sexually immoral were dealt with by Jesus. The first was the woman at the well who was also a Samaritan, and the other was dragged alone, despite Mosaic Law demanding the man she sinned with also be dragged to be stoned.
Unless you’re one of those folk who think that Mary of Magdala, who had 7 demons cast out of her was a prostitute, but there’s no evidence she was a prostitute. Shoot, until 591 no one even thought so, until Pope Gregory I wrote that homily.
Yeah my religion preached pretty heavily that “Mary Magdala” was a prostitute, they had one of the teenage girls be her in a play and announce loudly that she was a prostitute that God forgave ._.
God I fucking hate my old church >.<
You might say he was hanging around with the godless right up to the last few moments here on Earth.
I’m going to have to call my pastor and apologize for that one, aren’t I?
Jesus hung out with people that Christians would call sinners (and whom the Hebrews of his time would call unclean) but I do not recall a single character in the New Testament who could be called godless (save, I guess for Paul’s hypothetical ” . . . fool in the road.” One can be a knowing or unknowing sinner (I suppose) but one can hardly be “godless” without self-awareness of the fact.
“Christians would call sinners..” You mean, everyone, including ourselves? >.> No one on earth is perfect. People use the word “sin” very melodramatically.
I’m not sure what “Godless” means in this context, or any context, for that matter.
People Christians would consider immersed in sin or unapologetic about their sin. I am aware that for some Christians sin is the natural state of man (and that doctrinarily this is true,but Christian in the US is a fuzzy,slippery term).
Godless would be those who reject god’s teachings or existence entirely. Nobody seems to be that in the New Testament . . .
One of my ex-girlfriends was a hardcore christian(and I was and am an atheist) and she asked me to go to church and just try it out with an open mind. I said okay, and my mind was completely open.
I fell asleep. So yeah, church is boring.
Fun Fact: Later, she cheated on me on her birthday at a christian rock festival with a guy named Chad.
I may never look at Christion rock festivals the same again. But that only reinforces my opinion of random guys named Chad.
I have a similar experience with guys named Arthur. *shudder*
The irony is strong with that one…
But I’m sure she just prayed for forgiveness and she felt all better. Christians love justifying their hypocrisy by saying all they have to do is pray for forgiveness and they’ll be forgiven.
Like oh so many statements before this… not all christians are like that. I know some that would not dare use such a cheap scape goat to justify their actions.
Dude, why the hate?
There are Christian rock festivals? GAH!!! That’s a nightmare!
Why would anyone ever attend such a thing?
I don’t care what religion you belong to, there’s no excuse for listening to Christian rock.
Christian contemporary music has more going for it than you’d think. There’s even Christian metal (“white metal”) and hip hop (“holy hip hop”). Pretty much any artist who stands up and says “I’m going to create and publish music with religious themes” isn’t just religious, but must also be a dedicated musician to want to work in such a field with a smaller market. To anyone not bothered by Christianity, CCM is just a sector of the industry, no better or worse than the rest.
That being said, there is some TERRIBLE Christian music, along with the good. Of course, the secular music industry has Justin Bieber, so I guess it evens out?
Not any artist. Christian pop music is also an area that can be cynically exploited because a large section of the audience refuses to be critical of those who share their faith (and a significant portion of the audience is musically sheltered and naive and will not recognize an artist as riffing on popular secular music). And there are artists who occasionally cross over into mainstream popularity at least occasionally (as when Jars of Clay’s “Flood” reached number 37 on Billboard’s pop chart).
It isn’t something I usually go for. But “Avenged Sevenfold” is pretty darn good at what they do, I have to say. That’s about as close as I ever get to Christian Rock.
“”I don’t care what religion you belong to, there’s no excuse for listening to Christian rock.””
theres also no excuse for listening to Chris Rock…
Yeah that’s kinda douchy on Joyce’s fault. Its also incredibly naive which fits her character.
I don’t hate her for this. Its not like she is tricking her or anything.
I normally can’t stand characters who act like Joyce, but she’s just too adorably naive and innocent to stay mad at. She’s like a little puppy dog who makes a mess ’cause she doesn’t know any better.
theres nothing wrong with asking someone to come to church with you, its not like she’s forcing anything down her throat.
though the fact that joyce really need to work on ending her thoughts one sentence earlier is a problem that continues to persist.
I never said there was. I was actually talking more about fundementalism in general than this specific incident. Most fundies make me want to scream “CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!” Joyce just makes me go “awww”.
It is if the point is to attempt to convert someone. At best it comes off condescending to me.
I feel like I should have a logical rebuttal to that, but I’m too tired to think of it right now.
I’d say something about that, but I’d hate to come off as condescending by offering up an opinion or belief with the hope that it might convince you.
‘Cause, geez, what’s the point of communication if you keep using it to try to convince people of things…
I suppose its my own fault for not explaining WHY its condescending. The problem is that Joyce has assumed that this person who does not believe in God(and is clearly very well read) doesn’t believe in God because she is not properly informed.
Its a common problem. We as people often assume that if other people only knew what we knew they would agree with us. We don’t consider the idea that maybe if someone had all the information we have they would still disagree with your interpretation.
Do you guys honestly think she’ll hear anything she hasn’t heard before? If its not condescending its definitely naive.
Yes Joyce is well-meaning but naive. That’s kind of her main character trait… -_-
I contest that their is something wrong with it, not terribly so but in the same way if you know someone hates Twilight is a decent example and you pester them to come see the movie with you, its bad social habit and really attempting to convert someone in the first place is just a bit sad does naivety = lack of respect?
who said anything about pestering. asking someone if they want to come to church with you is not like battering someone into submission, at worst you’ve wasted an hour and at best you find something special that could change your life.
That Twilight example? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable, if annoying, social exchange. Like asking a sports fan to miss a game so he can watch cartoons with you. Or asking someone who hates video games to watch you play WoW for an hour.
Atheists don’t necessarily hate religion. That’s mostly the young new converts… You know, the zealous jerk ass angry teen types.
I always thought that if you “converted” to atheism you were obviously doing it wrong.
Nah, I can convert imperial to metric, I can convert my couch into a bed… It’s just changing modes. Though a lot of folks do it wrong anyway.
If a couch needs to be converted to become a bed, you’re still doing it wrong.
What about a couch with a pull-out bed?
Well Converting back to it would be more accurate we are born as a blank slate
But you’re not really becoming a blank slate – you still have opinions and perceptions about religion. So I would say converting works as a word, for lack of a better one.
I completely agree with your statement but it still doesn’t detract from my original point
Well no, but other people already detracted from your original point so I didn’t see much reason in restating what they said.
Converts to atheism? Converting someone to atheism (and I have been an atheist 38 years now) seems a bassackward concept.
It is backward, I suppose. Conversion usually implies adopting new beliefs, but converting to atheism is just abandoning your prior beliefs. (Well, some things may be picked up, such as the Theory of Evolution and some new philosophy regarding the nature of existence, but that’s not really the same thing, is it?)
Isn’t abandoning your prior beliefs adopting a new belief? One that you shouldn’t have beliefs?
Pedantic, I know. But so is the whole “you can’t convert to atheism” bit.
“The belief that you shouldn’t have beliefs” (which is kind of silly, unless you’re talking about solipsism- do you hold the belief that the earth orbits the sun?) is different from abandoning prior beliefs.
I’m not sure if I’d call it “conversion” to become an atheist. That seems more like one’s faith simply failing than their faith shifting, though it depends on what philosophy they adhere to.
It really is going to be a case by case basis for each person. I’d personally say someone “decides” to be an atheist but I could understand someone saying that they converted to it. Each to their own which is why I think it’s a bit of a silly thing to argue over.
It occurs to me that Walky still has not changed his stained shirt.
My theory is that all of his shirts have stains.
Maybe he does it on purpose to give the ladies a small chance at rejecting him. Have to keep that Lego bachelor pad dream alive.
Don’t forget the ball pit.
Because, y’know, Christians are supposed to live in a bubble. Salt of the earth and all that.
I can’t help but go “D’aaaaaaw, Joyce! How cute!”, but at the same time, feel sorry for Dorothy. As a person who was once wrapped into that sorta situation (sans le intended rape incident, mind you), going to church once doesn’t help make me ‘like what [I] hear.” Oh well, my percieved godlessness is just fine with me. Whatever happens Dorothy, I hope this is the universe where Walky becomes a doctor. If only for your sake.
Yeah, I don’t feel all that sorry for her. She totally walked into that one.
Worst case, she gets bored in church. Not really feeling sorry for her over that either – boredom isn’t the end of the world people make it out to be.
Honestly, I don’t know why people find Christians’ proselytizing so threatening. How does it actually hurt you, beyond mild annoyance?
I personally fear it because I want to get away and explain things without being insulting, which they usually make damn near impossible; its a fear of having no choice but to be rude, mean, or waste large amounts of time.
From the point of view of someone who left the church with all the trauma involved, it can be seen as hostile. Especially when it comes from a relative who keeps giving you advice on what to do when you’re left behind.
Oh, I understand completely, my dad tends to breathe down my neck a lot about what he thinks I should be. But I’ve grown to the point where I like who I am, so it’s not threatening anymore – it’s like a fly buzzing around, I just brush it away.
Letting people get to you like that is just a sign that you need to grow. At least that’s how I take it, but that’s a view that’s served me well.
I feel sorry for her in the sense that it’s not really asking her a favor. To be honest, a favor is more “Well, there’s this Bible game I’d like to try out” or something, not “Go to church with me on Sunday.” You don’t need someone to hold your hand on the way to church, unless she wants emotional support before confessing her sin of violence. But confessions are a Catholic thing, right?
Confession is (in the sense of an actual doctrine rather than a rote acceptance of the label) a Christian thing. Though God is omniscient part of the duty of a Christian is to confess her/his sins. In Catholicism (and several other denominations) one confesses to a priest as God’s intermediary, in other denominations you confess directly to God or to Jesus or to the community as a whole (and isn’t that a fun image); even the straightforwardly not Christian Church of Scientology is built on a process of confession (auditing). In all cases that I know of confession is a healing process for the sinner doing it.
Because there’s a perception out there that if a person disagrees with a Christian, regardless of how respectful they are about it, then that Christian will become hostile to the person for not adopting the same beliefs.
We can argue about how accurate such a perception is but it doesn’t change the fact that it exists. Only an ass goes around arguing with their Christian friends all the time that god doesn’t exist. Being put on the spot to go to church with Joyce means afterwards Dorothy is going to have to explain why she doesn’t agree. This isn’t horrible on its own…except because of a large majority of Christians not acting very Christian, most people expect a big clash and remonstrating for it.
Yes. Yes it does. It makes me remember the time I went to church and spent the whole time thinking. “I’m going to hell, I’m going to hell, I’m going to hell” Followed by incoherent mental sobbing.
So If I go back, I won’t just be bored. I’ll spend the entire time remembering that. 😀
Eh, I really don’t like being proselytized to, but primarily because of bad experiences and associations with it in the past. In HS, I was an out atheist, so I had people stopping me in the halls to try to convert me on a regular basis. It got annoying fast. Combine that with customers at my current job trying to get me to join their church(they don’t even know I’m an atheist, they apparently just try to get anyone they’ve never seen in their particular church to come), some of which were so enthusiastic about preaching that they scared other customers, and my reaction to an invitation to church from a friend would be “HELL NO”.
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3184/billieyeahdorothychurch.png
says it all ^^
Although the supply is short, +internets for you.
Reverse the situation Dorothy inviting her to a science conference or an atheist convention ? not insulting and or disrespectful at all ?
Nope, not insulting, sorry.
i think its a bit insulting that you think going to a science conference would be offensive even to a christian like joyce.
also, do they even have atheist conventions? i was sort of under the impression that atheism wasn’t really an organization
They do but its mostly about secularism and actually many people of other beliefs are invited because their main goal is separation of church and state. and lots of philosophy and science stuff as well. its less about Atheism and more about cool stuff
“Beryllium has an atomic weight of 9.012”
Joyce: “OH NOES”
I actually looked that up, you checked your facts (or you’re a chemist or something). Nice.
Oh sure, I go to Heathy-con every year! Last year I came in second place cosplaying as Charles Darwin but some guy that came in as Richard Dawkins took the gold.
I can’t tell whether you’re joking.
I don’t really see how? Especially not for a science convention. Now if it was Scientology that would be something different…
(and do atheist have conventions? are there panels discussing all the new evidence against theism?)
Not really. Too much crowding out from the bald persons’ conventions.
This is a common misnomer Atheism isn’t a hatred of theism. to quote
” its impossible to hate or dislike what we dont think exists its like hating Santa or the Easter bunny”. Its all about promoting positive atheism and septation of church and state, im sure some people use it as a social thing as well to meet like minded people maybe they are just giant dating conventions but they are mostly harmless from what i have seen.
Wait, what misnomer are we talking about? Who suggested atheist hated religion?
Actually the only example i see of some equating atheism with hating religion is BB’s Twilight example a few posts above.
Yes this post was le derp =/
The separation of church and state falls under secularism, a related but distinct phenomenon. It is entirely possible to be both a theist and a secularist. An atheist is someone who does not accept God/gods. Any further definitions, and you are reaching.
Furthermore, I’d be leery indeed of throwing around canonical atheist quotes declaring what “we” believe. The most important thing to remember about atheism is that it is not a group with a unified belief system. It is the “none of the above” option.
Separation of church and state, as I was taught it, was a phenomenon started by religious folks. Something about wanting to practice their religion without a government getting involved in how they worship and deciding what they should believe. But lately politicians are making me think that what I was taught is incorrect.
‘religious freedom’ was started by religious folks
‘separation of church and state’ was started by annoying rabble rousers who are so insecure in their beliefs that they believe that stuff like “in god we trust” on money or the ten commandments in a court house are infringements on their religious freedom
A. “in god we trust” on money and ten commandments in a court house is the government saying they value other beliefs or non-beliefs less. In my opinion, the former is a minor issue that’s not a big deal but is a legitimate issue that doesn’t merit your frankly rude condescending. As far as the latter goes, why the fuck do you need the commandments in a court? Isn’t that what those churches are for?
B. The idea of Separation of church and state is an (very old) interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and therefore from… OK they were rabble rousers. but not the group of rabble rousers you described.
C. The entanglement of church and state is a problem with church ejecting itself into law. It being the sole justification used by many fighting against LGBT rights, women’s rights and proper sex education to name only the tip of the iceberg.
> ‘separation of church and state’ was started by annoying rabble rousers
You mean like the Founding Fathers of the United States, who embedded Seperation of Church and State in the Declaration of Independance and Constitution.
Yeah, I can see how some people might have considered them “annoying rabble rousers”, like the Archbishop of Canterbury and King George III.
the united states was founded as a nonsecular nation. thats different from separation of church and state
nowhere in the constitution is there any mention of a separation of church and state. all it says is that congress cant make a state religion and that all beliefs are welcome.
the constitution itself was heavily based on certain doctrines of religion and also on the “constitution” of the freemasons who, at least back then, required all members to be part of a religion.
the founding fathers allowed prayers in schools, put the 10 commandments in courts and would say a prayer before the opening of every congress, i think they still do.
they did not necessarily believe in a separation of church and state, they just believed in inclusiveness
That is so amazingly wrong.
Point to Walky.
The United States was absolutely founded as a nation with separated church and state. Watch too much Fox and you might get some delicious, fluidic retcon all over you.
Jefferson used the phrase “separation of Church and State” and it is certainly a legitimate (and powerful) interpretation of the establishment clause. However, for at least the first fifty years of the nation’s existence (and to some extent until the resolution of the American Civil War) such constitutional limits were interpreted as solely limits on what the FEDERAL government could do, while state governments were freely allowed to engage in such activities as suppression of the press and establishment of state religions.
“In God We Trust” on money dates back only to the Civil War and was an attempt to give people more confidence in government backed currency. the US Supreme Court has declared that it is constitutional on the grounds that “In God We Trust” is a mere slogan and is therefore meaningless. American Christians have rejoiced in a court decision saying that this declaration of faith is the meaningless equivalent of GE’s “We Bring Good Things to Life.” What a victory . . .
In god we trust(as is nearly every overt reference to religion) was not created by the Founding Fathers. Not even close. All that stuff came about through the 20s-50s as a popaganda response to the Nazi and later communism.
You realize that “In God We Trust” was added to coins in the 50’s in order to combat Communism, right?
The separation of church and state isn’t for anything nearly as petty as that. It’s incredibly important for religious freedom that religious dogma doesn’t dictate laws. It’s impossible for everyone to follow every doctrine of every religion at the same time, so you’d have to accept one specific religion’s laws which inherently violates religious freedom.
This kind of thing reminds me of the dyslexic atheist… who does not believe in the existance of a dog.
Describing myself as an atheist is not my making a statement about the universe, it is a statement about me. It means I have no belief in the existence of god(s). It is not me stating categorically that god(s) does not exist. Then a**holes tell me I’m not an atheist but an agnostic, and we wind up a screaming fight anyway (yes, I am an agnostic; but that is even more meaningless than an American telling me she is a Christian; everyone is an agnostic, only the truly disturbed {unless god is a total jerkwad} believe they are not agnostic; a person is either a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic).
So…atheism don’t believe religion exists? How does that work, exactly?
Atheism believes that religion and Christmas exist, but doesn’t believe in God or Santa Claus. Atheists think that people who believe in God or Santa Claus have mistaken ideas about how the presents get under the Christmas tree, and some of them may get annoyed when others try to force them to leave cookies and milk out, or when others try to codify belief in Santa into law or create laws that only make sense if Santa exists.
Atheism is simply the state of not having faith in the existence of god(s). Agnosticism makes a distinction between belief and knowledge. Religion offers you the former, not the latter. Hence everyone is an agnostic because no one has knowledge of god’s existence,regardless of the strength on an individual’s faith.
Most religion believe in the supernatural ((usually god(s)).
Atheism believes that the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Agnosticism is a position where the individual isn’t sure if the supernatural exist or not.
There are (at least) two separate definitions of each of the terms “Atheism” and “Agnosticism” which various people think are the correct definitions:
Atheism1: Lack of belief in any gods. Babies have this.
Atheism2: Dead certainty in the absence of gods. Babies lack this.
Agnosticism1: Lack of complete certainty as to whether god(s) exist. This is compatible with a moderate or large amount of belief either way, so long as 100% certainty isn’t there. Most atheists qualify, even very strong ones, due to vanishingly small possibilities and the like; on the other hand it seems that the majority of theists do not qualify. – most claim certain knowledge from one source or another.
Agnosticism2: the person just isn’t sure either way; they lack strong belief in either direction. They ‘aren’t sure’.
Note that these definitions aren’t really exchangable; these terminological problems tend to make discussions about either atheism or agnosticism rather a mess.
I think you’re kind of oversimplifying agnosticism. There is no proof of god’s existence so an agnostic cannot outright believe or have faith that there is a god. However, there is no proof that god doesn’t exist either, so an agnostic cannot outright be atheist.
For someone who follows a religion, proof does not need to exist for them to believe that god exists. Therefore the knowledge is irrelevant and they are not an agnostic.
An atheist need not (and probably should not) have faith that god(s) does not exist. That is more like a sort of twisted theistic position. An atheist need merely have no faith in the existence of god, opinion (as opposed to faith) is another matter.
Um. I’m talking about agnostics, not atheists.
Oh, re-reading what I wrote I understand where you are misunderstanding me.
In general, agnostics choose to believe that it’s possible there’s a god because of the lack of proof regarding its non-existence.
I guess I’m telling the guys we need to make more flyers for next year’s heathy-con.
Yes Dorothy, you walked right at that. I don’t think Joyce means it as definitive though, just a “let’s see if it works” I don’t she would be capable to take her bring her to the church with a leash if she refuses… I gues…
Do her comunity at least sells cookies or pastries? things tend to get better when there is at least tasty food.
Food bribes improve everything :p
‘cept for weight watches id imagine
How do you think they get people to come back? “COME WITH US HAVE TASTY FOOD!”-they eat tasty food get fat-
‘COME TO OUR MEETINGS TO LOSE WEIGHT 8D”
Its a CYCLE I tell you!
Sorry, but I’m almost embarrassed by some of my fellow nonbelievers’ comments here. God (irony intentional), you guys are whiners.
Seriously, is your lack of faith so WEAK that it can’t survive doing a friend a solid by accompanying them somewhere that makes them happy, even if you don’t get anything out of it? Basic human sympathy just beyond you?
I can sit down with the most religious members of my family, in their church, and never feel a thing. Y’all act like you still BELIEVE, and you think poor Dorothy’s gonna get gang saved, or catch on fire or something.
man that would be the best mass ever! …the fire one i mean. i don’t really know what being “gang saved” entails, but it sounds sticky
I’m generally in favor of people on fire. I wish more protesters would follow the examples set by Buddhist monks during Vietnam. Especially those people who were upset by Chaz Bono being on DWTS.
Depends on the church. If they are preaching love and forgiveness, fine. If they are preaching discrimination, expelling people from the worship team because a family member wasn’t successfully faith-healed, or preparing for the coming apocalypse, I won’t even go home for Christmas.
Yeah, many Christians would find that kind of church as disturbing as athiests, if not more so. For you, it’s just offensive and obnoxious, for us it’s a perversion of our core beliefs.
“Y’all act like you still BELIEVE, and you think poor Dorothy’s gonna get gang saved…”
You, my dear [person], are a wordsmith and a poet.
I am going to spend the rest of my life thinking of that word everytime I think of a college evangelical prayer circle.
Unless this fork does the trick… 🙂
You know, the four-squares are kinda fun. They just sing and dance and play music with a live band. Sure it’s praise music, but so is most of Christmas and nobody seems to mind.
If it were a Catholic mass, though… I’ve definitely been there, done that, got the communion, and I’m pretty sure I burst into flames. My poor family was very confused. It took months of therapy and reconstructive surgery, but here I am – too sexy for this comment!
To me it’s like KNOWING your friend is a Vegetarian, but STILL insisting they come to the steak house with you just to see what it’s like..
Running with your metaphor…
Just ’cause you go to a steak house doesn’t mean you have to eat the steak, you can get the vegetarian option.
She’s asking her to come to church and observe, not convert on the spot.
first off, shes not insisting shes asking.
secondly, that might be true, but if you consider the possibility, not knowing anything about dorothy’s back story, that shes a ‘vegetarian’ not for moral reasons necessarily, but because she was raised that way and took to it, then i dont think offering he some meat is that bad a thing.
that being said, the odds of dorothy “seeing the light” at this mass will be astronomical. if i were a betting man then id imagine that this is more a ploy by joyce to help dorothy see things more from joyces point of view and get to a sense for the forces that raised her as to strengthen the bond of friendship between the two girls
Don’t mistake encouragement for insistence.
Uhhh… guys? A thought occurs to me.
Mr. McDateRape said he was the son of a pastor and he said he was telling the truth about that part.
If Joyce is going to a new church in the area, isn’t it a possibility that she may run into him again there?
Oh my God, I hadn’t thought of that.
Suddenly, I have the feeling that Sunday’s not going to be a good day.
Assuming we ever get there, of course.
Actually, it could be a good thing – public setting, lots of people, he can’t try anything. If Sarah hasn’t told Joyce the “pastor’s son” was the assailant, she’ll find out and be more cautious in the future with suspicious drinks.
But Joyce doesn’t remember what he looks like, does she? Maybe she will remember if she sees him, but if not… Neither her or Dorothy knows what he looks like, while he does know what Joyce looks like.
Bad. News. But a potential for conflict, so… good storytelling.
She said she remembered meeting a nice pastor’s son (or something along those lines).
True. But not his face.
Yes I wrote face with four letters and without caps lock. It is possible.
Only time will tell I suppose.
Speaking of his face, there will be a huge gash on it that may allow Joyce and Dorothy to put two and two together.
Why would she remember meeting him but not remember his face? And Dorothy totally could see his face when she first ran over to the scene after Sarah beat the snot out of him before he escaped while Amazi-Girl was distracting him.
She didn’t remember his name, thanks to the date rape drugs, so not remembering his face would fit too.
Oooh shiii-
Holy crap, that’s a horrifying idea.
Which of course means that Willis is going to do it.
Oooooh I think you just called it Linkara.
Please go to church with her, Dorothy. Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease…
A rapist in the church with his attempted victim?
This would not end well..
I hope Joyce has a lot of glass on hand
No, it’ll be nothing to worry about. All one would have to do is toss a little of the holy water on Mr. McRapist and he’d instantly burst into flame. Problem solved, and Dorothy gets a memorable church experience. Two birds, one stone.
I’m an atheist, and I get that “You should come to service with me” sometimes.
I don’t find it annoying unless it’s done repeatedly by the same person after I said “No thanks”. Even then, I understand from their point of view they’re trying to do a good thing for me.
Honestly the only way I can see this being offensive is if you’re arrogant enough to find someone thinking you might be wrong and they might be right offensive. And that in and of itself is dickish.
I’m not an atheist and I find potentially find her disrespect for how Dorothy got to believing what she believes offensive. Well, if she just wants company it’s a different story of course, but to think something like going to see religion in action would convert someone so easily indicates that she thinks Dorothy’s views are shallowly based at best. “What? You don’t agree with me? You must not have spent enough time looking at the information/seeing REAL religion in action.”
So going to see religion in action isn’t going to work because she’s seen REAL religion in action? Where is religion most real, then? Seems to me you’d find out the most about a group of people and their beliefs by going somewhere you could talk to them. Probably a building where they all convene on a regular basis, where their beliefs are freely expressed, where you can observe how they treat each other. But for the life of me I can’t think of what such a venue would be called.
I believe that Jinxed44 intended to put that “REAL religion” quote in Joyce’s mouth. That is to say that Joyce thinks that the only reason Dorothy’s an atheist is because she hasn’t been to a REAL church yet (ever in her life). Joyce hopes that when Dorothy visits Joyce’s (REAL) christian church, and is touched by the real spirit of Christ that Joyce assumes permeates the place, that then Dorothy will discard those ill-thought whims that make her godless and become, er, godful.
Precisely, L, but I wouldn’t call it dickish, more like insecure. If someone saying “you’re wrong and I’m right” bothers you, what are you doing on this planet?
I’m an atheist and I’ve taken people up on that offer. Sadly, they all get disappointed when I don’t find their beliefs all of a sudden logical and convert.
A buddy of mine from a much more Conservative sect of Christianity actually tried to convince me to go to his church and have a debate with his pastor over a number of issues. That had bad idea written all over it, so I passed.
Just thought I’d throw out that some Christians occasionally find it necessary to convert other Christians to their interpretation of Christianity. So it’s not just you non-Christian folk getting handed pamphlets and told you’re going to burn. Even we converted get it on occasion.
Some of the crazier fundamentalists especially seem to have this big time towards Catholics. Just look at Chick Tracts. When the discussion turned to those before, I looked at the topics. Catholics were the only Christian denomination that was addressed in them.
Not very different from the heat Agnostics (“I don’t know if there’s a God”) get from hardcore Atheists (“There is no god, and you’re an idiot”).
I have considered the issue and have come to the opinion that when talking about group activities where little or no active participation is required, silence is assent. This is often made explicit in the case where an individual is conducting the service or performing the prayer: when they say “we thank thee, god, and swear ourselves to love and serve you”, this statement applies to all members of the congregation, including those who don’t join in the quiet murmur of ‘amen’. As best I can tell the only way to negate this automatic assent would be to immediately and LOUDLY proclaim your dissent.
Now, I know that there are many people who would say that my silent dissent is a qualitatively different statement than the next guy’s silent assent, despite being completely indiscernible from each other. To these fine people I say, “bullshit”. If I am in a group and the people of the group start yelling “all gay people should be murdered”, then remaining silent and present is still offering my support to the idea. One does not need to be carrying a sign to be an active part of a protest, and one does not need to be yelling hosannas to be an active part of a congregation.
As a person who has, after long consideration, concluded that all variants of the Christian god and its religion depend on an abhorrent example of pointless human sacrifice, not to mention various other problems that different sects and churches dabble in, I consider it immoral to participate in support of any of it. Actively immoral, even to just sit in.
So, by your claim that even sitting in is immoral (even putting aside how that makes you more judgemental than any of them), how is anyone supposed to draw their own conclusions about Christianity? Are they just supposed to take your word for it?
There is a difference between being a part of a group and being a visitor. Unless you mean that the people around you don’t know the difference – and since when do other people’s thoughts influence the morality of your own actions? You do not have to be loud and disruptive to not accept what a group says.
Also, you seem to have this habit of using insanely exaggerated examples to “prove” your point, not realizing that circumstances do in fact change with degree. If someone says “all gay people should be murdered,” then yes, it would be right to say something against it. If, instead, they say “God exists,” and you yell your disapproval at the top of your lungs, you are not behaving in an appropriate manner. You’re acting like a petulant child who never wants to hear anything different than what they believe.
Every person in America knows what Christianity is about; don’t be ridiculous. And for the vanishing percentage that manage to slip the the very, very, very small amount of exaggeration in the above statement, they can do a google search and find out about it. You do not have to personally indulge in something to find out about it. Except for crack cocaine. That’s are totally harmless and good for you, and if you haven’t tried them personally you really can’t know otherwise. There’s no other way to find out about it except trying it out.
Paragraph two: I addressed this explicitly. Quiet participation IS assent, and support. Hell, quiet non-participation flirts with being assent from a functional standpoint: ask any gay person in a state that banned gay marriage based on the popular votes of less than 50% of the population. I’m not going to exercise my outrage by picketing anybody’s churches, though: I would consider that behaving in an inappropriate manner. (Though possibly a wise manner.)
Finally, there is no exaggeration. I really do personally consider a quiet placid church meeting to be on a comparable moral level as a slave-owners meeting back in 1810. The people at the church are placidly unaware of the corrupt nature of their morals – rather similarly to how racism was calmly and casually prevalent back in the day. This didn’t make racism good then, and it doesn’t make blind unthinking acceptance of the sort of dieties that would employ human sacrifice as a scapegoat justice system good now.
You probably think that comparison is insane. That’s nice; I think the beliefs in question are at least as insane. And your complaints about that fact sound rather petulant to my ears too.
“Every person in America knows what Christianity is about; don’t be ridiculous.”
Oh, so very, very wrong. There are many people who consider Christianity to simply be a series of “right acts” to “earn” their way into heaven. Even some Christians think that. And there are various other groups with misconceptions about Christianity, such as those who think that there’s something inherently immoral about someone giving their life for others.
“And for the vanishing percentage that manage to slip the the very, very, very small amount of exaggeration in the above statement, they can do a google search and find out about it.”
That’s like saying that school is pointless, that kids can just do google searches to learn anything they want to learn. Going to church allows for not only easier learning, but person-to-person contact where people can ask questions and get things directly explained to them. Not to mention that going is a thing most Christians do on a regular basis, and to make a decision about Christianity, it would probably help to know what church services are about.
“I addressed this explicitly. Quiet participation IS assent, and support.”
Except when it’s not. When, during a sermon, the preacher says “we,” he or she is referring to the body of the church, which the visitor would not identify with. That’s the thing, here – you do not have to identify with a group to observe what their practices are like. In fact, saying that just reveals your own ignorance, claiming to know more about Christianity’s morals than actual Christians, when you would refuse to set foot in a church.
“Hell, quiet non-participation flirts with being assent from a functional standpoint: ask any gay person in a state that banned gay marriage based on the popular votes of less than 50% of the population.”
Except churches are not political bodies. Sure, people may vote based on their religious beliefs. But going and listening to a church service quietly is nothing like refusing to vote. For a non-Christian, it’s research. Even if it was research on a group that’s “immoral.” Would you say it would be wrong for scientists to study, say, a tribe that practices self-mutilation without running in and telling them how wrong they were being?
[Third paragraph in its entirety]
I can honestly say I haven’t seen a more hateful thing said about any group ever before, and I’ve seen Fox News. Firstly, about this “employing human sacrifice” nonsense – for it to be “employed” by the church, it would have had to have been something that believers did at one point. They did not. Not only was the act itself advocated by Jewish religious leaders (who were very different from the Jewish leaders today, let me make that perfectly clear), it was carried out by secular law enforcement. Second, it isn’t “human sacrifice.” If anything, I suppose you could call it a suicide, since he went along with it, but it wasn’t any ritual. It might have been less symbolic if he had died of some sort of accident, but if he still came back from the dead, it would have served the same purpose.
Thirdly, comparing it to racism IS another exaggeration, just like the “murder all gays” one, because the belief on its own should not hurt anyone. You want to know what the main tenants of these “corrupt morals” are?
The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.’
Oh yes, these beliefs are SO insane.
I like how Penny Arcade puts it better.
Jesus says: “Don’t be a Dick.”
Sums the whole testament up in one unambiguous sentence really 😉
I’m an atheist, but I have many Mormon friends. They have asked me to attend service with them on occasion, and I have often done so. The difference between them and Joyce is that they have absolutely no intention of converting me. They just want to hang out.
On one occasion, however, I ended up running into the bishop of their ward, who seemed ecstatic about seeing a new face. I think he saw me as a potential convert, because he kept telling me all of the great things about the church. Needless to say, my friends thought this was absolutely hilarious.
i don’t think that joyce is really trying to convert dorothy. she just said that if it happens then its a plus
There’s no reason to invite her other than to try and convert her. If she just wanted to hang out, there are myriad less controversial and more fun places to do it.
How do you come to that conclusion? She likely goes every week, but doesn’t get to see any of her friends from school there. There’s no reason she wouldn’t just want to see more of her friends at a place she spends a lot of time at. Granted, considering her character, I’m thinking she is hoping that conversion will take place, but a simple invitation there doesn’t necessarily mean that the whole reason is to convert.
Another thought though, she probably doesn’t really know the people in the church she’s at, as it’s safe to say she’s no where near home. Seeing familiar faces when surrounded by strangers could easily be something she’d want, and not because it might mean they’ve converted.
I concede that there may be other mild factors contributing to wanting Dorothy to accompany her. I reject that those alone would be enough to get her to ask if she didn’t want to convert Dorothy too. I mean, it’s obvious that she knows her request is something Dorothy won’t like: she won’t even meet her eyes and her facial expression shows embarrassed discomfort over the pushiness of the request.
I’m sorry, but that wasn’t remotely pushy. :/ It’s perfectly normal for someone who makes a habit of attending Church to ask a friend who probably doesn’t care to come along. Honestly, this seems like it’s halfway between an enthusiastic invitation and a self-conscious request.
She probably does have a certain hope that maybe Dor will reconsider her theological position, but ultimately, it seems like she just wants the company. Of course, I’m basing this off of my understanding of the character, and these four panels, and so I’m just leaning toward her being moderate and reasonable, since we haven’t much of a reason to think otherwise.
Joyce, you rebel.
“Also we should make out. Awrawalaala *tongue wagging*”
Man, it’s church. It’s not going to kill Dorothy. Worst case, she’s going to be severely bored to mildly annoyed for an hour or so. Maybe she’ll hear something that goes against her beliefs or even basic logic, but maybe it’ll give her something new to think about. Even if you don’t end up converted, attending a religious service outside your comfort zone can be a world-broadening experience.
Unless Dorothy believes a pretty odd variant of atheism, she’s *certainly* going to hear something that goes against her beliefs (“god exists”, for starters). And unless she’s an apatheist or an atheist due to having the innocent ignorance of a newborn babe, she won’t hear anything that gives her anything new to think about. Everything any standard Christian preacher might say has already been said and heard, repeatedly.
Begbert, have you ever actually been to more than one church? With the things you’re saying, I’m guessing you just went to one or two different churches in your life, and decided “Yup. Every church, every Christian community, and everything that might be said by a Christian, is exactly like this.”
Dear Dorothy: It’ll be OK. Joyce puts the “Fun” in “Fundamentalist.” I am, perhaps unreasonably, hoping it’ll be a congregation that may be dogmatic, but isn’t dour.
As an aside: What are the odds the pastor’s son has fresh stitches on his face?
It looks like Ms. Sarazu Dina make it on the bus after all.
Based on what?
Based on how it looks.
Can’t argue with that!
Bets that the preacher at the church Joyce wants to attend is the father of the boy she glassed last night?
Part of me wants to take that bet, the other part is saying “It’s a trap.”
of course the experience all depends on WHAT church you go to, and I hope Joyce has at least scouted around Bloomington to find a nice group.
I know not everyone is religious but if you are serious about it you need to find the place that is best for you. Not every congregation is the same. I know that certain church’s are insufferable, extremely judgmental, and terrible to go to, while some are pretty laid back and accept others no matter what.
The church I still call my home church is like that. It’s why my sisters and I don’t go anymore, we were sick and tired of being judged because we were in a different money situation then everyone else. Family was very poor while I grew up, and everyone else had more than us. Quite sad, tbh
Okay, I’ve made quite a point about how empty the term Christian is in the US because of the diversity of beliefs that huddle under that tent, but this takes the cake. How can you seriously consider the message of Christianity and also believe you need to find the spiritual community you are most comfortable with for your religious needs? Shouldn’t you be seeking congregation that will lead you more correctly in your spiritual development regardless of whether you are comfortable with it or not? Otherwise doesn’t that just reduce church to a social activity?
Just because a person is judgemental and in a religion doesn’t necessarily mean they are trying to correct error they see in you. They may just be the kind that hates anything that doesn’t live up to their impossibly high expectations. Just look at Saturn’s experience, he was being judged because he was poor. That isn’t corrective in any way, that’s just looking down.
Also, how your errors are pointed out matter a lot more than whether they’re pointed out, as to whether you’ll correct them. If some one tells you how horrible of a person you are because you [insert reason here], chances are, you are probably not going to correct. Either you’ll get pissed, and rebel all the more, you won’t care, or you’ll wither under the criticism under the belief that you aren’t good enough and can’t improve. Very different from some one who actually is concerned for you, and wants to help you.
In the example by Spiffster, I’m more likely to correct my ways if the laid back group told me about it, than I would for the judgemental group. The judgemental group doesn’t care about me, I’m some one they look down on. The laid back group will accept me either way, but sees a way I could improve.
Or… it could mean that there are things not explicitly stated in the Bible that people disagree about. You can still grow in your spiritual development just the same, even in places with different doctrines. For example, I personally don’t believe in child baptism, because I think of baptism as something to be used as a public declaration of faith, not something necessary to salvation. But does that mean I wouldn’t be able to grow in my faith if I went to, say, a Catholic church? Not at all.
Plus, with what Spiffster actually said, the “bad church” he described would be detrimental to spiritual growth because of the people occupying it, so I’m not sure just what you disagree with.
The reason you don’t like Christianity in the United States Zoot is because of all the flavors? Sorry but it kinda goes with the territory around here in the States. We have Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, SOUTHERN Baptist, Quakers, Presbyterian, etc. And not only do these groups and more have their own ways of worship, but many also have their own beliefs to an extent that fall into the main groups but can differ due to location and congregation. It’s just the way things are. Falling under one umbrella and expecting others to follow it, especially when they live on the other side of the continent, let alone the world, can be strenuous and you can lose members. It’s just adapting the overall message.
Also I’m sorry to hear that Saturn. That’s under the same vein as the old tradition of “Wearing the Sunday Best” that drives me up the wall. People dressing extravagantly to make themselves look good, and then turning their noses at family’s who were not. Only doing this as a means to make themselves feel better about their troubled home life (or just to be snots, that also happens). If you’ve come to worship, that’s all that should matter, not dressing up so that you can smokescreen your family problems.
I have no particular dislike for Christianity anywhere. I have a problem with the term as it is used in the US because it has become meaningless. I can be a proponent of prosperity gospel, a latter-day saint, Baptist dissenter, a monophysite, a Swedenborgian spiritualist, a snake handler, a Christian Scientist, a Primitive Baptist, a follower of Jesus Christ Scientist (which is vastly different from a Christian Scientist), a Spirit Baptist, a Hudderite, a Davidian, probably a Rastafarian (though we are getting kinda far afield in identifying Christ by that point) or part of dozens of other mutually incompatible religious and call myself a Christian. By the point a term is inclusive of all these things it no longer means anything by itself. I ask my students which of them are Christians and almost all of them raise their hands, I read the Apostle’s Creed to them and none of them recognize or agree entirely with it. So, as an outsider, I cannot accept anyone’s claim to be the true Christian and some others to be false Christians. And when someone opines anything “as a Christian” I take it with a truckload of road salt.
I guess she really Walky’d into that one!
It’s really upsetting that I had to be the first one to make that joke, 233 comments in.
How could that be either upsetting or a requirement for you? Was someone cutting off one of your fingers every time it didn’t feature in a comment? If so, you have an impressive overabundance of fingers.
Hey, he’s not the only one who got a bum deal here.
I went through quite a lot of knives. They don’t grow on trees, you know.
What does the bus ad say? Something “God”. It’s not an atheist ad is it? The second line looks too short to say “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
I like how Joyce isn’t meeting Dorothy’s eyes when she makes her ‘joking’ request.
Joyce going to a church in a new town for the first time … days before her encounter with Ryan the Pastor son …. hmmmmmm … where is this going?
To be fair, there’s no particular reason to believe that Ryan is any more local than Joyce is. And he doesn’t strike me as the moral enough type to frequent church without Father Father looking over his shoulder, so if he’s not local she should be okay.
True, but then agien, it is Willis’ comic. XD
“A million miles away…Your signal in the distance, to whom it may concern…”
Foo Fighters? No? Dammit.
Everyone’s arguing about the invitation. Joyce’s last line is what’s offensive. “That way I don’t have to tell my folks I’m fraternizing with the godless.” That’s basically “I’m embarrassed to have you as a friend, please fundamentally change your worldview for me.” Not to mention her use of godless here is basically a slur, calling Dorothy unclean. Not cool, Joyce. Not cool.
I don’t think you’re giving Joyce enough credit. Just because she doesn’t think her parents would approve of Dorothy’s beliefs doesn’t mean she’s embarrassed of Dorothy as a friend. Remember that Joyce is worried about worrying her parents and forcing her to leave the university. If I cared that much about my parents’ opinions, I’d sure want to be able to downplay things they might not approve of. She’s not demanding that Dorothy change her world view or else lose Joyce as a friend; she’s laying out an extremely hypothetical result.
May I add my opinion to the general debate here..
God’s greatest gift to mankind is free will. everybody is free to do, say, think, believe anything they want to. just that there are consequences to some actions.
If someone wanted to believe that the universe is a giant jam donut controlled by a giraffe with 3 heads, and thus wore stilts and yellow t-shirts every tuesday, and this was their actual belief, they are free to do so. (please dont let this spawn a new religion)
the greatest sin therefore is to hinder another sentients free will.
also, not all christians believe in an afterlife, thus negating the need for them to do any “saving”
I’ll outline my personal beliefs for you, not something i do often, as they are outside mainstream religious thinking.
firstly, on the thorny topic of evolution, why would the existance of a greater power preclude the posibility of evolution. It is the creationist viewpoint I find flawed, the very notion of it screams to me “incest is ok with us”, buti’m not here to disparage other viewpoints, but to present my own.
What if a being of immense power and intelligence designed existance as we know it all before existance began. once the design was complete, hesheit created an explosion of matter and energy (the big bang) in a very specific pattern. the universe itself evolving from superheated gases. balls of matter forming to planets etc.etc. Life starting as the simplest cells —> complex organisms —> sentient beings
tldr: God caused evolution.
It is also my belief that God is dispassionate. hesheit’s there, hesheit can see us and hear us, he just doesnt care all that much about the minutae of our lives. You wouldnt call the president of the US if some kid breaks your window.
It is my belief that christ did exist, but he was just a man, a man inspired to present to people what he felt was a better way of living.
to me, God is neither good nor evil, hesheit is a force of nature
those are just some of my beliefs, I felt it necessary to present an alternate view, perhaps helping some of you to realis that life doesn’t fit into neat little boxes, so why should beliefs.
appologies for the grammar, this was all written from my mind to the keyboard with no editing inbetween.
I think you pretty much just stated my religious opinion.
Now take the next step and realize that you just described a useless god. Because you’re only giving it credit for starting events that do not need a god to start, it’s not required for anything, and there are no consequences for either its existence or non-existence. Apply Occam’s razor and you’re an atheist.
I’m sort of squeamish about Occam’s razor… I mean the damn thing must be pretty messy and blunt after all this time, right? ;P
Truth be told, Dorothy seems the type to study up on stuff like this before coming to major decisions, it’s likely she previously was a follower of some religion but through her own decisions came to her disbelief in religion over all. Joyce’s heart may be in the right place, but she doesn’t quite realize the likely futility in this course of action.
I wouldn’t say it’s likely she was a follower of some religion. I do, however, agree that she’s probably gone through a period of religious investigation, whether approaching the subject from the inside or the outside. I’m not expecting Joyce to be changin’ any minds anytime soon either–at least not Dorothy’s.
I don’t have a problem believing what they want to believe. But sometimes they just to shut up about and I find myself feeling they need to more often lately.Mostly because I am a pagan. I tell my family this and they call me a satan worshipper and try to get me to go to church. I have actually lost christian friends due to this fact.
Now, one of these such events isn’t enough to bother me. But it happens ALL THE TIME. So by the time some non-pushy nice, private Christian makes a comment to me, I am so tired of hearing it, I act like a real prick.
On a side note, I often talk to the Mormons when they come to my door and they’re often friendly enough, but they are quite pushy and I personally find it very rude to sell your religion door to door like a vacuum cleaner.
I’m positively overwhelmed by the level of discussion this section has reached. Mr. Willis – you should be really proud of yourself, Sir.
And now for my grain of sand: I think human fallibility is inherent to being human, regardless of your personal beliefs or lifestyle. I’ve had different people from wildly different backgrounds try to “push” their beliefs onto me, albeit very kindly and gently.
One was a Christian that I had questioned out of curiosity, being a former Catholic myself.
Another one was a very, very atttractive lesbian girl I had pursued despite knowing she was gay, who in turn tried to hook me up with one of her male gay friends. (“Sort of walked right into that one, didn’t I.”)
And finally there were these two pot smokers I worked with, who -given my questions about pot and what it feels like- naturally tried to convince me that cutting out the middle man and experiencing it by myself was, like, totally the way to go, man, dude, dooderino.
Notice that each of these situations was actually started by me with my questions, curiosity, and/or boner-induced pursuit. In all three cases, things started out playfully, got a little weird for one or more of the implied at some point, and were eventually clarified through conversation.
I guess what I’m trying to say is if you are really into something that actually defines a big chunk of who you are, it’s only natural that you will try to get others into it. In your own mind, you’re only trying to share the goodness with them, and what’s wrong with that. Especially if they’re being all sorts of nosy and curious about it.
Or, you know, trying to bone you.
Finally, if only as a homage to my long-neglected Catholicism, I should confess that on at least one occasion, I have gone on really obnoxious, drunken, shouting anti-Christian tirades in front of good Christians who had never even touched upon the subject with me. Over dinner. As a guest. At their place.
Any way you look at it, you’ll have to agree that was one of the all-time low points in my life.
At some point, we are all guilty of trying to impose our views on others. Some people are more tactful or talented at it. Some people are actually right in doing it (think health campaigns). And somewhere in the middle of it all is human progress.
Church ain’t that bad. Seriously, it’s one hour and if you’re just a visitor people understand if you don’t say the words. But Joyce’s comments so far make me really worried about the way her parents have shaped their views around the faith.
For one, most real and actual churches recognize the difference between a younger person visiting with a friend and a new long-term congregant.
Also, there’s singing, and cannibalism-by-proxy, and hugs. Handshakes if you’re squeamish. What’s not to like?
Well, all churches aren’t created equal, people have a lot of fears and misunderstandings about Christianity due to how little people understand the differences that divide different sects and while many of these fears are unfounded, many aren’t and depending on what church you take them to.
The level of casualness in the attitude of the priests and laity, the sects doctrine, how open they are to new comers and willingness to encourage their curiosity all come into effect with the person interacting with a church and depending on how things go it can be a pleasant experience that at the least disproves a number of fears…or at worst, proves them all right and serves as a traumatic experience for them.
Ultimately, as I said, it really comes down to the church you go to because the people who congregate tend to set the feel of it for someone who doesn’t know the locale.
least she did’t said every sunday