OK, I thought I had heard this story previously. I can almost slightly understand the parental point of view, but I do have to LOL at the resolution they came up with.
So, wait, they’d consider that kind of thing a sin, but then look the other way cause of cash? See, my parents would probably do the same thing, but they’re also not the type to flip their shit over Whitney Huston.
Well, I don’t know if his parents are that kind of fundie, but there certainly are a lot of fundies who do believe that possession of gobs of cash is a sign that God favors *them*.
Another way to look at it is intent. Doing something for a paycheck means it’s under orders and to put food in your belly. Doing something for free means your making sacrifices for its sake. Not every person can work for companies that are completely in line with their beliefs.
No, don’t look the other way because of cash. The cash is God’s reward. So, uh, God is happy that David got all of this out of his system. Or something.
And it will be a much more comfortable bed he will be gasping his last breath out on than otherwise, and he won’t have to wrack his brain in vain about finding something to repent for and get pardoned.
I mean, this is still the I-did-not-inhale U.S.A. we’re talking about, right?
“Your honor, I did not draw sex with this woman.”
Because it’s not actually a woman but rather six gerbils with nipple tassles in a sexy Ninja costume. Prove me otherwise. It’s a cartoon.
Every once in awhile I read a story that reminds me how lucky I was to have parents that were completely indifferent to indoctrinating me into any given belief system. That was one such story.
All of the yes. Not being indoctrinated is the *best*. Another side benefit is that in later life, you definitely won’t be ashamed of spouting religious nonsense when you were young!
You’ll just be ashamed of spouting completely mundane/antireligious nonsense when you were young! YAY!
It’s not a shop, just a box full of price-reduced books – mostly 3 € per book. They’re very common and I mostly get my fixes from them because there are some very good books hidden between all the old biograpies and ‘female literature’. I also get more books for less money this way, as most newer books cost 10 to 12 € around here. But we do have a thrift shop for books in my hometown.
Ah, thanks. I saw saw this word in an online dictionary, but I didn’t use it because it’s a word I mostly associate it with garbage. That’s why I use the German word in quotation marks, if I don’t know or can’t find a good English equivalent.
As the phrase ‘bargain bin’ tends to imply something that you think is garbage, but that you hope someone else might find valuable, your association is not inaccurate.
Eh, in American English you throw garbage in the “trash” or “trash can”, never the “bin” (though for some reason it’s always “recycle bin”, never “recycle can”?). So “bin” just means a reasonably-large plastic container, without trash connotations, though probably “junk” connotations, since anything you want to throw in a bin without really organizing it probably isn’t very valuable.
I was under the impression that Mensch most precisely meant “person” but that in practice that meant it most oft gets used as “human” except in certain sci-fi and fantasy contexts. I’ve long used it in that context when the stupid at work hits critical mass and the shit hits the fan by muttering “Ich hasse Menchen hier.” while fixing the problems (fixing the stupid somehow ends up being 25% to 50% of my job)
“Ich hasse Menschen hier.” would be “Here I hate humans.” You’d have to say “Ich hasse die Menschen hier.” to arrive at “I hate the people around here.” If you are talking about a more specific set, you’d probably use “Leute” rather than “Menschen”, but it’s really a small semantic nuance.
“Menschen” is used for both “humans” and “mankind”, whereas the etymological similar “Menschheit” is more like “the humanity”.
You’d never translate something like “man and animal” with “Mann und Tier”, by the way. In German, males cannot really represent the whole family. It is “Mensch und Tier”.
That’s a pretty old sentiment, older than Christianity. One of Socrates’s dialogues is about how a poet can’t orate well on his own, but is possessed by a god when he does so.
I had an ex who was annoyed that all football players’ praise goes to God/Jesus, but all screw-ups are one’s own. No one ever says, “Jesus made me miss that pass!”
Especially when most of Jesus’ miracles are things that different Roman gods did. It’s almost as if they knew who they were trying to make it sound like “Oh man, did you know that there’s this one guy who could do all the things your gods do? One guy!”
In the same vein, equally mysterious to me is the idea that Joyce’s beliefs all come from some crazy minority sect of Christianity. Some bits and pieces are, but the core of the crazy is right out of the bible and subsequent Catholic dogma (official term).
If Joyce looks crazy to you because she’s talking about being a slave for god, or how the bible is literally true…it’s because she’s closer than you to the ‘official’ beliefs, not further away.
Biblical literalism hasn’t been Catholic dogma since at least Vatican II (note this is a different concept from the message being true, Biblical inerrancy). It’s more a fundamentalist and evangelical protestant thing.
Oops, just fact checked, I’m seriously rusty and made a serious error. There are actually 3 concepts, literalism (the Catholic dogma), inerrancy (the Protestant dogma) and infallibility (which is that it’s true with regards to matters of faith, i.e. the message is true) Honestly, as a layman I can find very little difference between literalism and inerrancy.
That should have been catholic dogma, as distinct from Catholic dogma. But I is an American and so for me Christianity means whatever a self-proclaimed Christian wants it to mean at the time of proclamation. If an American tells you that he or she is a Christian, that person has contributed a net zero amount of knowledge about her/his personal belief system.
Taking the Bible literally is always a strange concept to me because it’s a text that’s been highly summarized and edited, hundreds or thousands of years after the events described, and in different political times and often under a deadline. So many ancient manuscripts describe things in much greater detail, like the flood or Jesus’s deeply metaphorical philosophies.
Yeah, it sounds nuts if you describe it that way. Unfortunately, many folks learn it was written by eye-witnesses and that by being God-inspired its faithfulness is maintained despite its heavy translation.
I’m a professional medievalist (really, the words after my name and everything — my specific degree is in English literature) and something I’ve talked about in my research is how in the middle ages scripture was more fluid than it became post-Reformation. It was more a collection of accepted practice, commentary, and the Bible rather than the Bible alone. Bible stories were considered to be both literal and allegorical.
This is still true today, but because of the Reformation and the assumption that you should cross-check everything against the Bible everything shades into literalism in some really unhealthy ways when it comes to American evangelical movements.
As far as anyone should be concerned, Christianity IS faith in the Bible. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. I can understand many people’s skepticism, but I’ve heard (from people who study this exclusively) that the Bible is incredibly accurate. The only errors that we know of so far since the Dead Sea scrolls are punctuation errors. That’s ridiculously improbable, but it happened.
The thing that most people forget when applying science is that improbability doesn’t mean impossibility.
Christianity being faith only in the Bible sounds an awful lot like idolatry to me.
And it depends on what you mean by “errors.” If you mean inconsistencies, then there are many. On what day was Jesus crucified? Who were his disciples? Who went to the empty tomb on Sunday and who did they see? Who did Jesus first appear to? Did Paul immediately seek out the Apostles in Jerusalem once he was converted or did he leave for Arabia for several years first?
Or if you mean transcription errors, then we’ve got a few to talk about here as well. What about the several verses added on at the end of Mark’s resurrection story? What about the added-in story of Jesus and the adulterous woman? What about half of Paul’s letters not actually being written by Paul but by forgers? What about the letters claimed to have been written by Peter and Jude but most certainly were not?
tl;dr: The people I’ve heard from (from people who study this exclusively) say the opposite of what you do.
Ok, for the gospels, Luke and Matthew were based off of Mark, and for Paul’s letters, it was the custom in the day that if you studied under or respected a person greatly, you would put their name in your teachings because it was not your knowledge but theirs that allowed you to have this information.
Yes, Luke and Matthew both have parts of themselves cribbed from Mark. (And also likely from a hypothetical document called Q.) But they also moved stuff around and changed them and ultimately contradicted their source material because they had divergent narratives and agendas. Saying that Luke and Matthew were based off Mark doesn’t solve the original problem of why they conflict with each other on very important details — it actually kind of makes the problem worse. If Mark is supposedly inerrant, then why was it altered by the other two authors for their own works? And if the whole of the Gospel is inspired, why would God let those changes happen in the first place?
And I laugh a little at the second part. The letters that claim to be by Paul but were actually written by other people were written in the second century AD, a hundred years after Paul was alive. No one who worked under him wrote them, and if any of them respected him, they wouldn’t have contradicted so strongly with what his genuine letters preach. That’s part of why we know stuff like Timothy 1/2 and Titus aren’t his — they’re so different in theology (not to mention word use). No one who forged a letter in Paul’s name respected him. They used his reputation to push ideas the real Paul would have been aghast at.
And while that sort of thing was indeed common at the time, it was in no way condoned. It was considered forgery and deception. It was supremely dishonest, which is a quality I’m pretty sure God isn’t supposed to be in favor of.
And then there’s the fact that surviving early copies of New Testament texts come in many different versions, usually grouped into “Alexandrian text-type”, “Byzantine text-type” and “Western test-type”. Which you use as a source for a translation makes a big difference! The King James mostly uses the Byzantine text-type (specifically a collection called the “textus receptus”), but more recent translations usually use the Alexandrian because most scholars believe it is earlier.
Then you’ve got the Comma Johanneum, which may have been a marginal note that some scribe accidentally included in the main text of the First Epistle of John when making a copy.
And that’s just New Testament stuff, not getting into the four sources hypothesis for the Pentateuch.
Even the tiniest translation errors can completely subvert meaning. The example given to me referred to a seed, appropriately, & changed the word ‘have’ to ‘had’. Written one way it was a message of hope, the other way it becomes scornful, & changes our understanding of the character of the participants.
We can’t even translate modern languages that accurately, never mind centuries-old spoken dialects.
Sounds like the greek word kamelos (camel) vs kamilos (rope) confusion (which I only just now googled). But apparently the “rope” (mis?)translation appears only in later copies. The earliest manuscripts are all about the camel.
It was explained to me that the “Eye of the Needle” was the name of a gate that was too small for loaded camels to enter through. Maybe that was wrong.
Oh, that is definitely untrue. That’s a story folks made up so that it’s only slightly difficult for rich people to get into heaven rather than outright impossible. Such a gate never existed outside of wishful thinking.
The “Eye of the Needle” gate is a relatively recent fabrication, presumably intended as a hand-wave to keep prosperity gospel loons from feeling guilty about their greed.
Funny, I always thought that Christianity meant being a follower of Christ, what with it being called “Christianity” and not “Bibleism.”
Smart-assedness aside, IMHO, following the example of Jesus (which I’m not claiming to be tremendously good at, mind you) is a lot easier when you realize that the Bible did not arrive via fax from heaven, and a lot of it, quite frankly, does not jibe with his message and example of love, acceptance, and self-sacrifice.
Yes; I think though it’s also a belief in the divinity of Christ. I like Christ’s philosophy as given in the Bible, but I don’t believe him to be divine, so I don’t consider myself Christian.
That said, an awful lot of Christian dogma comes from Paul, too, and some people seem to treat Jesus as a philosopher rather than as a Messiah, as an offshot of Jesuism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism).
Sounds like you have fallen victim to the typical religious snakeoil peddlers. As others have said in the other posts, and from the people who really are experts on the subject, the Bible is very far from accurate when discussing it’s historical, or scientific accuracy.
This whole argument is hilarious. As time goes on I find that some of these arguments/debates/whatever that happen in the comment section of Dumbing of Age are actually among the best reasons to continue reading the comic.
And in that note, I just have to add: keep in mind what they say about arguing on the internet.
It helped cure my depression, and so gets a place in my heart despite the, frankly pretty bad, first eight episodes.
It’s wonderful to think, even for a short while, that if you plant your feet and yell at the heavens you can force the stars themselves to spin to your will, so long as you want them to badly enough.
Eh. If you think the first few episodes are bad, blame 80’s giant robot anime, as that is what the first 3rd of the series is an homage to.
*SPOILERS ALERT* The death of Kamina brings you into the 90’s, the first serious mentions of Spiral Energy/Power bring you into the oughts, and the final episode goes where the writers wished the genre would go in the future. *END OF SPOILERS*
What I dislike about the first few episodes is the reliance on stupid gags, the poor quality of the animation, and the lack of any meaningful plot. You essentially get the first episode, which was decent, and then six or so episodes of mostly-filler that could’ve been condensed into two or three and have been much better.
After the first big battle the pacing, atmosphere, writing, and animation quality all improve markedly, and the jokes become less juvenile, making it much more enjoyable.
*Checks the different Getter Robo series release dates*
Okay, so you might be technically right about the first bit and wrong about the second (Shin). But this is if we’re basing it on Getter Robo, which TTGL has a crapload of homages to. Tomino started making robot series late 70ies early 80ies, after all… 🙂
Personally, I thought the TTGL ending was kind of stupid. But that’s much personal opinion.
People have pointed out that it’s generally the story of a boy becoming a man, and that Kill la Kill (also made by them) is the story of a girl becoming a woman. It’s funny how, despite all the fanservice and complete crazyness they have, they do actually have good meanings and morals behind them.
I saw an analysis of kill la kill that viewed it less as growing up, and more as moving on. Oh yeah, SPOILERS, both female leads had lost something precious to them. Ryoko lost her dad, and Satsuki lost her baby sister. They note how each turns to revenge as their grieving process, and that the best way they could handle it was, in essence, to move on. To face the challenge at hand, by letting go of the personal vendetta and focus on the danger the antagonists posed to the world as a whole. They said it was interesting to note that neither gave the finishing blow to the person that both had wanted to kill.
TTGL: 2007
Nanoha A’s: 2005, with “Raging Heart, if you believe in me then I’ll believe in you.” and a Starlight Breaker that pierces the heaven Wolkenritter Barrier.
Nanoha being “magical girls as Gundams” I suspect both series are getting the sentiment from older anime.
I remember getting a final paper back in Freshman English with the suggestion that I should a.) think about grad school and b.) submit the paper for publication. 2 years later, I’m presenting that paper at one of the biggest conferences in the country pretty soon.
Having someone who believes in you–truly, actually–believes in you is a wonderful thing.
I admit, I am a serious Doyce shipper. (Joyothy?) I LOVE their relationship. And I’m not even shipping on a sexy level, either. Everyone needs a friendly foil like this. They challenge each other to think outside of their own boxes. I love this!
If Joyce is nothing without God, then in the same way, it mathematically follows God is nothing without Joyce– no matter which way you take the grammar. (Joyce-God=0, multiply by -1, God-Joyce=0. Joyce=0-God, add God to both sides, Joyce+God=0, subtract the Joyce, God=0-Joyce.)
In other words, Joyce is as important as God (which makes sense if she is God or the antiChrist/antiGod).
It saddens me greatly how common this belief is. Now, these days it’s “limited” to mostly the more authoritarian US Christian sects, but it used to be a fairly popular view and it’s just so soul crushing.
Of course, the leaders of the churches never seem to have any trouble feeling pride, they’re just careful to praise God for making them so awesome. It’s mostly a tool to keep the lay-people in line. A sort of brainwashing threat: “You’re nothing without this church and your faith. If you leave/question us you’ll be worth less than dirt. Dirt isn’t doing the devil’s work, but as soon as you doubt me you’ll be helping him damn humanity.”
It also gets used as a weapon against unbelievers. When you ask about heathens doing good things the reply from people who believe this is often along the lines of “Oh, that was God working through them, not them doing good of their own volition.” It becomes a way to discount any and all who you don’t agree with.
We humans can be a pretty damn messed-up species at times.
True, but again only for the leaders. “Normal” folk who “fall” do so because they were too weak and so it’s all their fault. Leaders who fall were tempted by the Devil, so it’s not their fault.
I do not pretend to be a great church leader, or someone who is deeply versed in the mysteries of the Universe, but I do read my scriptures and try to follow my faith, and what the good messages have taught me is that it IS God working through us, but doing the right thing requires inner strength that we have to choose to use.
Therefore, Dorothy is right, it was Joyce. Joyce is right, it was her want to do what God wants that moved her to stand up for her friend. And Dorothy is right to want Joyce to be proud of herself; she did a good thing. Pride is only a sin when some starts to think they’re better than others.
I think Dorothy and Joyce are really, really great for each other 🙂
Pretty much sums it up. When it comes to Christian theology (any Abrahamic theology really), one has to be able to understand where God’s will ends and God granted human free will begins. The fine distinctions between pride and hubris are unfortunately lost on much of the modern audience, to wit there is a failure to understand that attributing all responsibility to another, even God, for one’s own actions, whether positive or negative, is itself a form of hubris.
Oh hey, this reminds me of one of those TED talks I heard, from the lady who wrote Eat Pray Love. It was a while ago, but I think she talked about how long ago, the term ‘genius’ had a different meaning. If somebody was especially talented at an art or a job, they weren’t “a genius”, but rather they “had a genius”, or they were channeling a sort of entity of inspiration.
She had actually supported this concept, as it would take pressure off the artist if they could not come up with ideas, or have to worry about keeping up a self-image of them being talented or intelligent.
So just pointing this out because it looks really weird to me how it is now but shouldn’t Dorothy’s other eye be quasi-squinting too? In panel three I mean.
No. It’s an eye twitch. In animation and comics it’s become a tropic shorthand to show an emotion, usually frustration but sometimes anger, that is otherwise not easy to communicate visually. The fairly common O_o emote serves the same purpose via a similar visual shorthand.
I interpreted it as a way of representing the different angle her eyes are through her glasses; the near eye is being faced directly enough to show the detail around it, but the distant eye is not, and thus shows only the basics.
This line of thinking doesn’t work so well on panel 4, in which she’s viewed close to straight-on.
Wait if it’s an eye twitch then why are BOTH of her eyebrows curving like that? Doesn’t that normally denote that both of her eyes are doing a motion of some sort? The curved eyebrows are what made me question it initially.
I’d say thay Dorothy just outright bashing Joyce’s religion by saying it hurts hee to hear Joyce being religious pisses me off, but in the last two weeks Joyce has pretty much done the same thing to Dorothy.
I wouldn’t say that Dorothy is saying that “Joyce being religious” hurts her. That is being way too general. It is more that Dorothy is hurt that Joyce thinks that nothing good she does is her own accomplishment.
It’s not that Joyce is religious that’s the problem, it’s that Joyce has said that she is literally worthless without God acting through her. That she is nothing but a puppet that a deity uses to advance its own agenda and that her life and accomplishments are meaningless.
Now, that is part of Joyce’s religion, but any religion that teaches that is toxic and controlling and, frankly, deserves to be bashed.
From what I’ve gathered, Dorothy has been pretty open about being 1. atheist and 2. okay with Joyce being Christian [to the point of GOING TO CHURCH WITH HER because YAY SOCIALIZING]. Joyce has freaked out about Dorothy’s atheism [and admits to being disappointed that this is where they can’t have similar interests] BUT 1. accepts that it is not her place to convert someone who isn’t interested and 2. has confessed to being curious about non-believer lifestyles.
tl;dr: I think they’ve agreed to disagree in the interest of being friends, and friends ARE occasionally going to point out things that don’t quite jive with them, as friends do. Dorothy [and any good friend] is right to say ONCE that, “This aspect of X doesn’t sit well with me.”
Jen you actually phrased that rather well. Good job.
The problem with Joyce I think is her reliance on the religious aspects of faith rather than the spiritual ones.
Dorothy is wrong, of course, that believing that relying on God makes someone a puppet or makes them lesser somehow…after all it could be argued that God gave Joyce the strength she has to see good in people (Christian or otherwise) and the wisdom not to judge them.
But that being said Joyce isn’t entirely right to believe some of that isn’t her either. Just having the tools God gave us doesn’t mean we always use them. A good many people go through life never achieving their full potential because they are held back by fear. We still have free will.
Personal pride is not a sin. Raising yourself up as your own god however would be….but somehow I doubt that telling your parents when they’re out of line would count in that regard 🙂
Its good that Joyce and Dorothy are friends and tolerant to each other’s views on spirituality. Joyce hopefully will learn that God won’t begrudge her swearwords and the occasional need to fulfill certain very human desires. And hopefully Dorothy will appreciate that perhaps having faith in something beyond oneself isn’t always a weakness.
And as for Walky….well, he’s just Walky. LOL!
Yeah, I didn’t interpret it as “OMG I’M SO OFFENDED”, more that D is hurt for J’s sake. Even though she doesn’t realise that that’s what gives Joyce strength, I guess?
Ugh this is really fucked up though, this attitude of ‘you yourself are worth nothing, everything you do is god acting through you’. No matter Joyce (and people who grew up in similar circumstances) often have self-esteem issues. I mean, I have a hard enough time believing in myself on a daily basis (and often fail) and I was raised by completely agnostic parents. I can’t believe how diffiult self-esteem must be to come by for Joyce, who has clearly been questioning certain things she’s been taught since going to a secular college and making all sorts of different friends. I guess it’s easier for people who never question anything. But those people have other issues, not neccesarily self-esteem. But ugh yeah. Long comment, sorry, I just hate that this happens to children/people 🙁
The idea of people not being allowed to take pride in what they do is an alien concept to me. Even my religious parents never said anything of the sort from what I can remember. Then again, if there’s anything I’ve learned by now, it’s that my upbringing isn’t necessarily indicative of others’ experience.
Tell me about it. I’m Roman-Catholic and what I was taught was mainly “don’t be an asshole”. I’m still wondering about how many Christian denominations exist over in the USA – and how many of them would be on a watchlist where I live.
And a lot like Joyce, who are non-denominational. Which can be…
Okay. You say you’re Roman Catholic, so you’re part of a tradition that puts a lot of effort into interpreting and understanding religious ideas, and priests helping to give guidance to the laity.
A lot of the non-denominational groups are really big on sola scriptura, and often hold the KJV as the single perfect immutable Word of God. They take it as read that anyone should be able to read the Bible and get the Truth unambiguously delivered. You can’t, of course–the Bible is a collection of disperate books from multiple authors written over thousands of years–but a lot of non-denominational “Bible believing” Christians hold that disagreement isn’t just difference of interpretation, it’s foolishly or maliciously going against the one true word of God Almighty.
It sometimes strikes me as odd, that some of these non-denominational churches sound far more dogmatic than the Catholic Church I’m familiar with. A friend and I once discussed some parts with our local bishop and he was very tolerant.
To contrast that: My brother’s ex-girlfriend was a member of a non-denominational church and seemed to had very strict views about religion – she later changed to one that was far worse, one that definitively brain-washed its members.
In my experiences, free churches seem to be a mixed bag where I’m from. Some of them are very ‘normal’ – but others are more like cults, viewing other people as heretics.
They also don’t seem to know very much about the very book they ‘understand’. The New Testament contains stories that were translated from Hebrew(?) to Greek to Latin and finally to over a hundred different languages. There are some translation errors and misconceptions.
In my opinion, the Bible and other religious books are merely guidelines rather than ‘the word of God himself’. It’s written by humans and therefore has to be at least somewhat faulty. Even the priests I talked with said that the stories in the bibles have to be intepreted.
Maybe it’s a misconption of mine, but following the strict letter instead of understanding the lesson sounds more like something people would accuse Roman Catholics of instead of being something free churches would do. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Well, at least we don’t have to put up with some of the more – extreme groups here. Hatemongering and such are not protected by freedom of speech or religion here.
The non-denominational churches in the US run the gamut as well, but it makes sense that the crazies would be even crazier on this continent, being the spiritual (and I suppose literal in some cases) descendents of the puritans that moved here when Europe got sick of their judgmental asses all those years ago.
Also, the more “extreme” sects also tend to be the ones more focused on “saving souls” and winning converts, while the more moderate ones are tend to be much more willing to live and let live and let their actions speak for them. Actions may speak louder than words, but unfortunately, words yelled into a TV camera speak louder than actions.
Now that you mention it – it was always a pet theory of mine that we just put all of our religious nutcases on a ship und sent them off to America as soon as we got word that it existed.
Where I live most of the religions seem to live very comfortable with each other – most of the radical fringe cases are denied their forum and suffer penalties, if they break a law. That’s what I meant when I said that hatemongering isn’t a protected right here – if you abuse your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech to limit another person’s right – you’ll get punished.
I guess that’s why we don’t get people like the WBT and such over here. They would just get fined into oblivion or end up in prison. Worst case, you’d end up on a watch list like the Salafists and Scientology did.
No offense, but I never understood how some of these people can do what they want unpunished in the US. Maybe I just don’t the legal system.
While I’m no historian or religious scholar, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that the US’s religious and speech freedoms are, in part, a reaction to the decided lack of same in the portions of the colonies controlled by the puritans.
Also, the establishment of the US as a secular nation still isn’t sitting well with the descendents of those who wanted a theocracy on this side of the pond, even after 200 years, which probably influences them doubling down on the crazy.
Generally speaking, the situation in western Europe seems much more enlightened than in the US. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of geography, with people from multiple diverse cultures regularly interacting as equals.
IMHO: The isolation of North America offered an excellent growth medium for groups of people who believed “our way is the one true way”. Not only is it mostly cut off from the rest of the world, but its abundance of land allowed highly isolated settlements to exist for over a century. There’s a sort of insanity or paranoia in a person who separates from society, and it’s apparently true even for groups existing separate from a larger, more diverse whole.
The US is still a reflection of this isolation. News is mostly US-only by comparison. There’s a popular attitude that the US is first and best in all things. The fundamentalist religion and politics seems fueled by a rejection of diversity and equality. Etc., etc.
There is a whole lot of “the bible needs to be interpreted” hogwash going on in order to fit it into one’s favorite belief systems and paganism. It turns out that the sources of both Old and New Testament are quite consistent and translations are pretty solid.
Yes, one can haggle over single words a lot but those are details. The short and the long point is that the Bible, not just the Old but also the New Testament, matches neither modern Christian lifestyle, morality, or beliefs.
There was actually quite a debate some centuries A.D. whether it would be better to abandon all of the Old Testament and not make it part of Christian Scripture. It was not before Jerome that an actual translation from the Hebrew to Latin (without going through the non-Christian Greek Septuagint scholarly version) was done, and certainly with a view towards getting closer to how they “must have been intended” from a “Christian” rather than heathen/hellenistic/scholarly view (the Septuagint was done centuries before 1AD).
At any rate: preaching is done on cherry-picked passages. “Good Christians” rely on their shepherds to figure out a religion and a moral from the old books and tend to have selected knowledge of the scriptures.
There is nothing wrong with finding solace and guidance for oneself in old wisdom and rules. It’s getting problematic where one considers it more important to get others to believe what oneself, actually, is rather doubtful of. “I could believe much better if I burnt everyone who doesn’t” is not a recipe for peace of mind or body.
As does that story. Mr. Willis, it continues to impress me how you’ve managed to grow as a storyteller and human being considering the incredibly restrictive environment you grew up in.
Pride in yourself is not sinful. EXCESS pride is. Nearly none is simply not healthy. Balance. Because the alternative is saying you’re nothing. Nothing without another. That’s codependence.
When you’re talking about Pride in terms of Christian morality, Pride is assumed to be excess. When it’s not excessive, it’s simple having healthy self-esteem.
You’re allowed and encouraged to be happy that something good was done, but it’s wrong to only be happy if you’re the one who did it.
Basically, if you’re happy that world hunger is solved, great! If you’re responsible for it, awesome! However, if world hunger is solved, and you’re being mopey because it was Fred next door that solved it, you’re a prideful asshole.
Glad to be of help. I see a lot of myself two or three years ago in Joyce, but it does depress me to see the results of her upbringing (which I understand to be similar to Mr Willis’s upbringing) in such a distorted version of Christianity.
As a non-Christian (ex-Christian really), this viewpoint was ALWAYS terrible. As if God is so in need of praise and puffing up he would create worthless creatures in his own image so that he could show off by making them do worthwhile things. Of course there are plenty of Christians who find this idea extremist as well, but it certainly sounds familiar.
Yeah, that’s what bugs me about an “all-knowing omnipotent God”: If nothing is greater than Him, then He could only create inferior things.
[no logic-breaking with “He is so great that He could create an even more powerful God” because what does that even mean then]
The reverse, of simple things creating more complex things, is really cool, and says there is NO UPPER LIMIT to our understanding of the universe. So much cooler than “all the answers have already been decided.”
It’s because it’s a misunderstanding, and CS Lewis, again, puts it best.
God wants us to become his children. Currently, we’re basically equivalent to toy soldiers — we have the image of god, but lack the omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. The tools he gives us, which he is totally responsible for, are still US — even if you make the hammer yourself, you’re still using the hammer to bash in the nail.
We ARE the good and bad parts of ourselves, and what the Hymnel thing seemed to take too literally, to the point of self-deprecation, is that we’re supposed to remember that everything (which, honestly, means good and bad) comes from God…basically, so we don’t devolve into full-on JohnGaltism, claiming that we don’t owe anything to anyone, and are totally and solely responsible for where we are today.
Yeah, what I don’t like is the “My Dad can beat up your Dad” aspects of *some people’s* Christianity. The Dads are irrelevant–I don’t like the attitude.
Hey gang, Swerve here. I’m sitting in Hoist’s habitat suite while he gives my phone a look.
I’m not really sure I’m qualified to discuss Dorothy and Joyce’s divergent world-views, but then again that’s stopped me from discussing anything ever before! Hoist could definitely back me up on that, right Hoist?
So I guess Joyce and Dorothy are gonna agree to disagree about this and let their friendship blossom? I’m still not sure what the whole debate is over. I don’t think Joyce gets the difference between self-esteem, pride. Optimus Prime has self-esteem, Tracks has pride. Prime is probably the humblest ‘Bot in the galaxy, but he knows that he needs to believe in himself, or his soldiers won’t believe in him. Prime has “The Touch”!
I must admit, this is the sort of thing that really gets me in trouble around religious folk of this type.
The fact that I don’t believe that their god exists, they can often deal with, even if it disturbs them. The fact that if their god did exist, I would believe him unworthy of worship, due to being an egomaniacal jackass, is a lot harder to wrap their heads around.
That’s not an uncommon problem. It can also include rival religious groups. Back on Cybertron, the Militant Monoform Movement was a fringe religious group who rejected belief in Adaptus, the god of Transformation. The MMM members didn’t necessarily deny that Adaptus existed (at least not all of them), but they definitely denied that he was worthy of worship, to the point where they would have their Transformation Cogs surgically removed (preventing them from ever being about to change modes ever again). To those who did believe in Adaptus, removing one’s T-Cog was seen as self-mutilation, and even worse an act of desecration, since believers considered every T-Cog to be a microcosm of Adaptus’ immortal form.
So there you have it: one group (Adaptus worshippers) believing that Transformation is a sacred act, and another (Triple-M members) considering having more than one form to be heresy. Needless to say, heated arguments often arise around Triple-M’s, and they’ve faced lots of prejudice. 🙁
Aye, this is one of the largest apparent hypocrisies of modern day Christianity IMO. If God is so all loving, then why do good people who’s only flaw is that they don’t believe in him or worship him go to hell? That doesn’t sound very loving, it sounds petty and selfish and jealous.
Well, for a very long time, the answer has been “if they’re good, they’re worshiping God even if they don’t think they are.”
A lot of modern sects have shied away from that answer, but they’re also usually the ones saying you’ll go to hell if you worship him the “wrong” way, like if you get blood transfusions or other nonsense, so yeah.
Most organized Christianity outside of the US is actually a lot more relaxed and liberal, at least until you get to the parishes where ethnic hatred is more important to everyone than whichever religion they hold.
Not pride confidence ,one must have confidence and see selth worth.Only when do you have to much of it does it become a problem, self love is dangerous, you must never put yourse above everything else that is what pride is.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand what humility actually is. Optimus Prime is a very humble person, probably the most humble person I’ve ever met. He’s also incredibly confident in his abilities, especially when he leads troops into battle. The two concepts, being self-confident, while still being incredibly humble, are not mutually exclusive. (BTW, did you know I have a picture of Optimus Prime, Ultra Magnus and Rodimus sitting together, in my bar!)
Joyce’s parents and religious leaders clearly don’t have as much wisdom as Prime does, or they would have taught Joyce that humility is good and so is self-esteem and self-confidence. Maybe Dorothy can point this out to her with a few choice compliments.
Well, there’s reading and reading for comprehension, if you get my drift. Some people read and the words flow into their heads and then make no impression. Others read and understand and remember what they read.
Oh! Uh, captain! Um, yeah, I’m pretty sure I saw Whirl carrying it towards one of the airlocks. Not sure why. Or how he got it. I’m pretty sure that Ultra Magnus locked it in his office until he was sure you had memorized the Autobot code. How’s that coming along, by the way? You should totally ask Tailgate for help learning it!
Not giving people credit for the things they do because you believe it all comes from God is one of my biggest pet peeves.
It doesn’t help matters any that when I almost bled to death, my mother’s reaction was “I’m so grateful to God for giving you the idea to call 911”
No, I can figure out for myself than when blood is gushing out of me, I should probably call 911. That doesn’t require divine intervention.
Actually, I don’t entirely agree with Dorothy on this one….and Joyce isn’t entirely accurate at the end either.
A proper Christian believes that God gives them the tools they need. Joyce seems to believe that having faith and believing that God is there and helps you is a weakness, that it diminishes the individual (Joyce) and makes them think lesser of themselves. That is far from true.
Faith is what sustains a good many people, but trusting in God is not a crutch.
It could be argued that God already gave Joyce the personal strength she needed, and to see good in people regardless of if they share her faith or not.
I think in Joyce’s case she’s too hung up on the religious aspects of faith rather than the spiritual and personal aspects of it. For instance she is not going to damage her soul because she feels human desires like wanting to bang someone or dropping just one “damn” every once in awhile.
Sooner or later Joyce will find a balance between her faith in God’s plan for her and her place in the world, while expanding beyond her shell and living for herself and finding some happiness. Having personal pride is not a sin, only living for that pride and glorifying oneself is technically.
Okay that’s my two cents….now hopefully we’ll see some girl on girl action next scene. And I mean a certain super hero and an certain biker girl having an epic showdown (though the other wouldn’t be a disappointment either Willis).
Man this hurts- I believed that for ages, though it wasn’t an explicit aspect of my belief system, I picked up somewhere that it was sinful and made people hate you. The damage I’ve had to undo from training myself not to ever view any of my achievements in a positive light was immense and it took years.
Man, this exactly. This is part of why this strip is so important – because fifteen years or so after my church and parents’ marriage exploded violently, I still can’t take a compliment without cringing.
Perhaps I am ready too far into it, but to me this looks a lot like a case of a double Author Avatar, where each character is representing one side of the author.
Joyce represents younger!Willis, who was a good guy full of dreams and hopes but also extremely naive kid who though that “sex was slaving” and “drinking one beer will end up with one of your friends dead”.
On the other hand, Dorothy represents current!Willis trying to deal with his past self, explaining himself that you need to take agency for actions and believe in yourself.
I hadn’t taken it quite that far (and not saying that you’re not right to do so), but it seemed pretty clear to me that this was Willis going, “hey here’s the origin of my self-esteem problems” which makes me :/ at all the people in the comments going NO REALLY IT’S NOT THAT BAD.
At about the age of 12 I asked the minister why would God ask a man to tie his own child to an altar and kill him, just to show how much he loved God and would do as commanded to do?
The minister told me that it was not up to me to judge God, but leave that to the ministry to do.
I then told the minister ‘why should I do that, I was only a kid, but I could read. And reading that in the Bible, made me think a God that would do that to a man wasn’t much of a God. Because if he was truly all seeing and all knowing, He would not need to do such an awful thing, he would KNOW if he was loved.
Being a several generation Pagan, my mother urged my brother and I to attend churches of all denominations and learn from it. I learned.
Oh, that one’s easy. God in his glory gave Abraham the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate his love for God, and his love was vindicated because God in his mercy deigned to let Isaac off the hook, leaving Abraham both with glory as well as his son.
If you want to get to passages that are not all that easy to shrug off, try the psalms where David wants God to take the children of their foes and dash their skulls on the rocks. That’s not exactly a good passage for arguing against schoolyard violence.
The maze of cleanliness and uncleanliness and purification rules are also of the kind you don’t want to overstress in order not to get to the “so it’s ok to ignore all of the rules in the Bible?” point. Yes, one can try the “in deep humility we ask our Lord to forgive us our transgressions against his word since he welcomes repentant sinners” angle, but why wouldn’t that also hold if you dash the skulls of your foes’ little ones…
It’s also sobering when a non-Hebrew woman asks Jesus to have mercy on her and heal her daughter and he, after silently ignoring her for a while, tells her “it is not meet that one take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs”. Ok, this story ends well after all since in spite of being a foreigner the woman does exhibit Jewish wit and chutzpah, but it is a close call.
I remember reading about the siege of Jericho in bible school and having the read the lines; “Leave no stone atop another and leave no man, woman, or child alive.” in our distilled children’s version of things.
Have you ever tried to piece together a drunken night with your friends the next day? Then you understand how the Gospels were written.
@Jesus_M_Christ
I like the core idea behind Christianity, but some of the tweaks I find objectionable. The Bible seems too crowdsourced for me to fully back.
Oooh, I’m interested! Since you’re Pagan, what do you follow exactly? What do you find more logical, reasonnable in it than in the dogmas of the churches of various denominations?
Your song about Whitney Huston’s son reminded me of a bit I read on a Christian site about some Christian singer that was fond of singing the song: “Big Yellow Taxi.”
Basically they ragged on this singer as an example of how she was not truly a Christian because Paradise is not man’s to destroy but God’s to give…
Sometimes people get a little too stuck on things.
Speaking as a pantheist, since all of humanity is God and God is humanity, the video is entirely right. It’s also a reminder that everyone is part of something infinitely greater and beautiful.
Is that how Joyce sees it? I would have thought it was more “God is awesome” than “I suck”. (A bit more thoughtless Dorothy could easily have said “God sucks” rater than “You are awesome”)
Well, the reason that God is awesome is that you suck. They kind of go hand-in-hand. If you didn’t suck, you wouldn’t need salvation in the first place. You can say “God is awesome” constantly without ever explicitly saying “you suck,” but the subtext is always there and understood. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23.
“Hey, we can’t really be dumb if we’re following God’s orders.
Let’s get serious. God knows what he’s doing, he wrote this book here
And the book says he made us all to be just like him
So if we’re dumb…
Then God is dumb
(And maybe even a little ugly on the side)”
– Frank Zappa, “Dumb All Over”
The point of salvation is so you don’t have to worry about sinning. It’s a way for us, as humans who make mistakes and have flaws, to be in the sight of Him who is perfect, without worrying that we aren’t perfect. The entire point is so we don’t compare ourselves with God, which is clearly what is wrong in Joyce’s beliefs.
I don’t disagree with you entirely, Willis. There are many people taught that “God is awesome and you suck” is the way of Christianity. But my belief is that God doesn’t care and doesn’t want us to care. Romans 5:8 says about as much.
I’m not and never was Christian, but this makes sense to me. Wouldn’t the point of a Christian God be to basically accept *everyone’s* flaws, beliefs and viewpoints, whether they’re Christian/Muslim/Jewish or not? As opposed to insisting we be utterly perfect even though we’re actually, by definition, flawed creatures?
I’m baffled by people who insist that God will only save the followers of their religion.
Is that how you were taught, Willis? It’s kind of hard for me to get behind the “Fallen Nature of Humanity” the same way we got behind “We’re made in God’s image.” Then again, those two sides of religion have always been at war.
A person begin good and God being good are not mutually exclusive. It may get twisted around to seem that way, but the relationship between a Christian and God’s grace is more like the relationship between a bowl and ice cream. The bowl doesn’t create the ice cream. It’s just a vessel for containing it. The bowl itself doesn’t have to be delicious and sweet in order to be a good bowl.
As far as Christianity is concerned, we can all be good people. Anyone can be a good person. We should all try to be good people! It’s not meaningless.
A Christian can be a vessel for God’s grace. I don’t want to get into an argument about what that means over the internet.
I’ve said in the past that the quality of a taco salad could be judged by the taste of the bowl it’s served in. I suppose that might hold true for ice cream and its serving container, too.
Huh, I always thought that was my secular-meanspirited-misinterpretation-of-what-those-wacky-Christians-really-believe rather than what they really believe. Then I’m really glad Dorothy handled it as well as she did.
I mentioned earlier in the comments that nobody likes being wrong. Except about terrible things. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to presume that having the core belief of “you suck” is pretty terrible. Sure, you can lie to yourself and believe that “you suck” is a good thing, but deep down it will still feel bad even if you don’t admit it, even to yourself.
With this in context, I think it can be assumed that Joyce is beginning to doubt her beliefs. Usually such doubt would be called a crisis of faith, and undoubtedly that’s what her family will call it when they find out, but I do doubt very much that Joyce will see it as a crisis so much as newfound freedom.
One thing I have found interesting about other Christians is their extreme guilt and disapproval in regards to them being human. Romans 8:1 specifically says that we shouldn’t feel condemned. But some people go about about it bass-ackwards thinking they’re being humble.
My point is that I agree with you that having a belief of “I suck” is destructive and useless. It’s amazing how perverted the Christian beliefs on humility have become.
Having not read Walky-verse Joyce I don’t know her future faith beliefs but will Dumbiverse Joyce ever renounce her religion or just settle for a less stringent version?
Kinda sad that you can’t actually have that conversation in real life. I mean, maybe some of you could but if I told any of my friends that it hurt me to know they believed a certain thing, that would be the beginning of a long and painful argument.
I get the feeling you misunderstood what Dorothy was saying. She wasn’t saying it hurts her that she believes in god, it hurts her to hear her say that Joyce is, “Nothing without Him.” When Joyce herself has shown that she is her own person, or at least is becoming her own person.
Through the practice of Reiki, I have gotten real results through a higher power flowing through me. However, I don’t attribute this to the god of any religion, much less an old book. My relationship to the divine is similar to my relationship with water. Both are sacred, but I don’t pray to them. Water is inside me, and so is the divine, both in a similar way. But neither water nor divinity has demanded anything of me. Not worship, not undying devotion, not prayer, not even faith or belief. Faith and belief are needed when you find it neccessary to tap into something you can’t prove, based on second hand knowledge. I don’t have faith. I have the knowledge that there are many things flowing through me that compose me. I know that I am powerful and strong because of the water in my blood and the electricity in my brain. I am the combination of many natural forces. However, I do not worship them, at least not in the same unhealthy way as Joyce. I have pride in myself, and I can still tap into the higher powers, which are just as much mine as my own blood.
In some ways, Bod is kind of a drop-in replacement for God. We all have Bod inside us – we are all part Bod. Our Bod is one of the holiest things we know. It makes a lot of sense to say “I’ll climb this mountain, Bod willing.”
But Bod is not perfect. Bod is one of the tools you’re born with. You own your Bod, and your Bod owns you – this is a mystery.
In a Bod-centric worldview, you sin by partaking enough of something that it becomes a poison to you, or by doing something when your gut is clearly telling you that it’s wrong. (Think of the subjects’ reactions to the Milgram experiments.)
In direct contrast to Christianity, separation from Bod happens at the end of your life, and is natural. It is not something that needs to be feared, but trying to postpone it is just fine.
Even non-believers in Bod spend most of their time following the wishes of their Bod.
Some extremists try to deny Bod, and a few (ascetics, and so on) even succeed. (Yoga masters probably aren’t trying to deny Bod so much as develop a special relationship with Bod. But it depends on the person.)
On the other hand, one of the major flaws of Christianity is that it teaches that Bod is dangerous, perhaps even bad and sinful!
I love Dorothy’s twitchy expressions in the second and third panels. It seems like a mix of worrying about Joyce’s feelings, worrying that Joyce will be angry, affection for Joyce, and maybe even a little embarrassment at saying something so sincere and a little corny. I’m glad Dorothy went ahead and said it, and I think Joyce had the best reaction we could hope for. It’s a very sweet moment.
I hope this self-esteem subplot helps her figure out that she needs to break up with Ethan. She’s obviously bothered that her boyfriend isn’t attracted to her, romantically or sexually. Maybe the double realizations of how happy Dorothy and Walky are together, plus this little ego boost, will help her realize that both of them deserve better.
And it isn’t prideful to say that your interpretation of His word (and assumptions regarding what is and isn’t His word) is completely correct and everybody else’s is completely wrong?
You should never take internet comments seriously. I’m pretty sure most people here are not posting under their real names. It’s like the old saying goes: “On the Internet no one knows you’re a turbofox”!
Anyway, my advice is to either ignore idiotic comments completely, or to actually seek out the intelligent people. Like me! I’m a certified metallurgist, I’ve fought in a four million year long war, and I run a bar on a spaceship! cj95, you should be reading my comments. Since I only discuss things I’m familiar with, like Cybertronian new religious movements, galactic politics, the atomic weight of Unobtainium, how to distill engex, whether my phone is working or not, and the whereabouts of Megatron’s missing fusion cannon, you should read my comments!
/swerve
Especially I have been using the aforementioned concepts as metaphors to discuss the religious and political issues Willis raises in his webcomic without offending individuals like yourself. Or Willis. Damn you Willis!
If you own your religion, you can defend it. Accept that people will dissect your beliefs and give criticism. The only good thing you can do, in my humble opinion, is know more about what you are preaching. Investigate your holy book deeper and from the context of a larger spectrum of divine study. You should dissect and examine your scriptures to know them better than those who would dissect them first. If you do this, and you find irrecconcilable weaknesses and contradictions to what you thought you truly believed, maybe its time to find a new religion, or at the very least a new point of view.
Possibly some people more Christian than me (which is everybody, my negasoul is fully disempowered by the ungod) can disentangle the theological point arising from today’s comic;
If all the good things we do are God working through us, and (presumably) all the bad things we do are Satan working through us, what is the purpose of free will if it functions merely as a toggle between God and Satan, a binary switch – if all the works of humanity are mere window-dressing for a series of flips of the coin, to what purpose does humanity exist?
I’ll readily grant that my understanding of Christian theology may be flawed, skewed towards certain denominations, et cetera, and I own and acknowledge my obvious bias in this subject.
Some christian denominations do seem to believe that all bad we do is the work of the devil. In such a case, the purpose of humanity would be to allow God to work through us to love and serve him.
Conversely, it is possible to hold the belief that all good we do would be God working through us, but all the bad we do would be our own fault for selfishly failing to allow God to give us the strength to make the right decision.
Finally, it is possible to believe that God created the universe and intended it to be a good thing. Free Will is also a good thing, as it gives us the opportunity to choose right from wrong, thereby giving both concepts meaning. It is our own decision to do wrong and sin, however because God gave us free will as something that is good, when we choose to follow his plan, we are doing good – and we are only able to do good because he gave us Free Will. If we did not have Free Will, then the concepts of goodness and evil would be meaningless simply because they were forced on to us, so we could have no knowledge of the other.
Finally, the last idea (often tacked on to others) is that God will give strength and courage to do the right thing to those who want to do his will.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all of those viewpoints discussed above for a few reasons. One of the simplest is that two people who fight for opposite things, and claim their strength comes from God, can both seem to have amazing strength and courage – but clearly, if they are against each other, they cannot both be fighting for what is right. As of such, only one of them could get fortitude and courage from God. But the other, opposing, person also has fortitude and courage. Thus, God is not the only source of fortitude and courage. If God is not the only source of fortitude and courage, then not all good can come from God, since some goodness & love would have come from people with fortitude and courage that did not come from God.
The “all good is God working through us” and “all evil is the Devil” is a metaphor, not a literalism. EVERYTHING is God’s doing since the universe, God, and everything is all tied-together like the no. 42. It’s why the Force works as a metaphor for Western religion as well.
Joyce and others who believe God is the only good thing in the universe are taking it out of context (in religion? I KNOW! WHO KNEW!) by creating a religion that humanity is sinful and evil without God. Which, while true, ignores that humanity is AWESOME and wonderful because God made us that way.
And don’t forget, after He promised to never do it again, he began to order us to kill each other in His name! (If the Old Testament is to be taken literally).
To be fair, Willis, that was when we were all mostly immortal and lived as long as elves. Oh and literally everyone on the planet was a jackass but Noah’s group–and one of his kids ra…you know, I think we can just stop and agree to say Genesis is a weird book.
I would have to disagree that humanity is awesome. We are insignificant compared to the rest of the universe, and we act in horrible ways toward each other in the name of religion and the God who supposedly created us. While I am not saying goodness stems from God (I believe that humans are perfectly capable of love independent of God), I would have to disagree that we have any capacity for goodness as a result of God. We have good qualities because groups of social creatures like humans that behave altruistically toward each other at least some of the time are more likely to survive than groups of social creatures where there is less kindness and love. Our ability to love, to be good and kind, to feel passion and happiness and sadness, are present in us because such qualities are advantageous to the survival of social creatures, and being social is advantageous when you don’t have claws or tough hide or sharp teeth. We are the way we are in large part due to evolution.
If you believe in God, then acknowledge his grandeur in his capacity to create a universe so complex that it can create life with the capacity to love, and yet simple enough that the life in that universe can begin to comprehend it. But I find little evidence that such a God would have any care for humanity.
The smile of a child is fleeting – we claim to care more about the eternal than the temporary. Both are beautiful, but it think the whole of physical reality matters far more than such a small and fleeting part of it as a smile.
Since this seems to be “Personal confessions night”, here’s mine: I grew up with a mix of Military Protestant and Missionary Baptist teachings, as well as placing a lot of belief in the scientific method. Well that’s a really bad combination for someone to remain a Christian, but I managed to stay Christian until someone from the church down the street told me in all seriousness that trying to preserve the environment was going to piss God off. Seriously, (this was in the late ’80s) the world was going to end Dec 31 1999 and if everything wasn’t totally used up by them God was going to be pissed for us “wasting” what He had placed in the earth for us to use. Of course we are now more than 14 years past that date and Jesus is still not here, the Rapture still hasn’t taken place. A year after that conversation I was a newbie Pagan and I remain Pagan (UU) today, though now I’m considered a Sage rather than a “newbie”, but don’t tell my students I still consider myself learning every day.
tl;dr: I used to be Christian until one of them told me something utterly stoopid, now I’m Not.
The Rapture is kind of a weird-weird idea that doesn’t exist in 90% of Christianity. One of the odd things about America’s fundamentalism streak is it tries to pretend the VAST VAST differences in Christian denominations and beliefs don’t exist. If you interrogated many, they’d fail to realize there was more than Baptist, Mormon, and Catholics out there and many would try and deny two out of those 3.
Just curious, but have you talked to that person since the non-rapture? I would be curious how the non-event was rationalized (handwaved) away. And did it affect that person’s faith in their church?
I don’t know man, there are plenty of terrible messages that come from the Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist goofball sects, but “the good things we do are God working through us” isn’t especially horrible. There’s another old adage, “God helps those who help themselves”, which is kind of about how we are free to live our own lives, God doesn’t micromanage us, and sometimes we have to count on ourselves rather than holding out for random heaven-send goodness, but God is still present in the world in subtle ways whether or not your level of faith dictates that you dwell on it a lot.
See, THIS is why I worship Sithrak. Every thing I accomplish was done through my own hard work, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of a cruel insane god seeking to torment me.
Loading ...
EEW YOU WANT CREDIT FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS WHUT
wait what Whitney Houston song
The Greatest Love of All
I really want to hear this story now
oh – http://itswalky.tumblr.com/post/17583392748/whitney-houston
http://itswalky.tumblr.com/post/85385223372/whitney-houston
Hahaha it’s half-funny, half-sad to think that my mom also hated that song for the exact same reason.
OK, I thought I had heard this story previously. I can almost slightly understand the parental point of view, but I do have to LOL at the resolution they came up with.
So I guess you don’t have Kendra Wells’s parents’ reaction:
KW: “I did this Smut Peddler porno, are you ashamed of me”
KW’s parents: “Not for THIS”
I have not spoken to my parents yet about my porn. I don’t plan on bringing it up, either!
though if it comes up i do have this photo of the first check i got, that should work
So, wait, they’d consider that kind of thing a sin, but then look the other way cause of cash? See, my parents would probably do the same thing, but they’re also not the type to flip their shit over Whitney Huston.
Yeah, that does sound contradictory to me. Wouldn’t that make it twice as bad to them?
I suggest using a different tactic: change the subject, then run. Or engex. Lots of engex.
At this stage, maybe C4 might not be a bad idea…
Two words: Prosperity Gospel.
Well, I don’t know if his parents are that kind of fundie, but there certainly are a lot of fundies who do believe that possession of gobs of cash is a sign that God favors *them*.
Another way to look at it is intent. Doing something for a paycheck means it’s under orders and to put food in your belly. Doing something for free means your making sacrifices for its sake. Not every person can work for companies that are completely in line with their beliefs.
No, don’t look the other way because of cash. The cash is God’s reward. So, uh, God is happy that David got all of this out of his system. Or something.
And it will be a much more comfortable bed he will be gasping his last breath out on than otherwise, and he won’t have to wrack his brain in vain about finding something to repent for and get pardoned.
I mean, this is still the I-did-not-inhale U.S.A. we’re talking about, right?
“Your honor, I did not draw sex with this woman.”
Because it’s not actually a woman but rather six gerbils with nipple tassles in a sexy Ninja costume. Prove me otherwise. It’s a cartoon.
Speaking of which, don’t let them know about the crowbars you’re doing, either.
haha, I was gonna say, are you using an alias, or are you confident they won’t Google you
Every once in awhile I read a story that reminds me how lucky I was to have parents that were completely indifferent to indoctrinating me into any given belief system. That was one such story.
Biggest side benefit: masturbation without guilt.
All of the yes. Not being indoctrinated is the *best*. Another side benefit is that in later life, you definitely won’t be ashamed of spouting religious nonsense when you were young!
You’ll just be ashamed of spouting completely mundane/antireligious nonsense when you were young! YAY!
“Doesn’t the mean that all criminals are god? And that you are god. Oh god I just said Joyce was god.”
What?
God dangit!!
Thou art God?
Ray, when someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “YES”!
I really liked this book – I once found the long version in a “Wühlkiste” (didn’t find a sound translation for the last word).
*looks at gravitar* Oh hi god.
thrift shop?
It’s not a shop, just a box full of price-reduced books – mostly 3 € per book. They’re very common and I mostly get my fixes from them because there are some very good books hidden between all the old biograpies and ‘female literature’. I also get more books for less money this way, as most newer books cost 10 to 12 € around here. But we do have a thrift shop for books in my hometown.
‘bargain bin’. If the word ever comes up again in your life, now you know it in English 😉
Ah, thanks. I saw saw this word in an online dictionary, but I didn’t use it because it’s a word I mostly associate it with garbage. That’s why I use the German word in quotation marks, if I don’t know or can’t find a good English equivalent.
I’m strange like that.
As the phrase ‘bargain bin’ tends to imply something that you think is garbage, but that you hope someone else might find valuable, your association is not inaccurate.
Eh, in American English you throw garbage in the “trash” or “trash can”, never the “bin” (though for some reason it’s always “recycle bin”, never “recycle can”?). So “bin” just means a reasonably-large plastic container, without trash connotations, though probably “junk” connotations, since anything you want to throw in a bin without really organizing it probably isn’t very valuable.
[/self-absorbed English detour]
“No” “Then DIE!” ¡ZAP!
Feels. ( p′︵‵。)
yay! Joyce having a personality of her own!
Joyce is growing.
Soon she will ascend beyond the limits of mere man.
She shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
If you only knew the power of the Joyce Side.
ReJoyce in this latest happening! Praise the Joyce’s Power!
Ubermensch? Uberwomensch? Or perhaps Überwomensch?
(I clearly do not know German.)
Überfrau.
Well, Mensch means human, so you’d call women Übermensch, too.
Das Überbraun
I was under the impression that Mensch most precisely meant “person” but that in practice that meant it most oft gets used as “human” except in certain sci-fi and fantasy contexts. I’ve long used it in that context when the stupid at work hits critical mass and the shit hits the fan by muttering “Ich hasse Menchen hier.” while fixing the problems (fixing the stupid somehow ends up being 25% to 50% of my job)
“Ich hasse Menschen hier.” would be “Here I hate humans.” You’d have to say “Ich hasse die Menschen hier.” to arrive at “I hate the people around here.” If you are talking about a more specific set, you’d probably use “Leute” rather than “Menschen”, but it’s really a small semantic nuance.
“Menschen” is used for both “humans” and “mankind”, whereas the etymological similar “Menschheit” is more like “the humanity”.
You’d never translate something like “man and animal” with “Mann und Tier”, by the way. In German, males cannot really represent the whole family. It is “Mensch und Tier”.
She will become Adaptus Soritus?
She-of-the-Triangle-Smile?
That’s a pretty old sentiment, older than Christianity. One of Socrates’s dialogues is about how a poet can’t orate well on his own, but is possessed by a god when he does so.
The idea to Christianity is somehow unique among beliefs is pretty mysterious to me, yet a lot of people seem to believe it.
I had an ex who was annoyed that all football players’ praise goes to God/Jesus, but all screw-ups are one’s own. No one ever says, “Jesus made me miss that pass!”
God clearly wants the other team to lose.
I wonder if it would have been more or less annoying for them to blame the devil.
That ex was a George Carlin fan….that’s one of his bits 🙂
My ex was a bit-stealer!
Especially when most of Jesus’ miracles are things that different Roman gods did. It’s almost as if they knew who they were trying to make it sound like “Oh man, did you know that there’s this one guy who could do all the things your gods do? One guy!”
Wait, what? Where did you get that from?
You better quote an actual historian or I’m calling BS on your statement.
“Which means you only have to make one set of sacrifices! That’s a savings of at least 11 burnt offerings per annum! BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE!”
In the same vein, equally mysterious to me is the idea that Joyce’s beliefs all come from some crazy minority sect of Christianity. Some bits and pieces are, but the core of the crazy is right out of the bible and subsequent Catholic dogma (official term).
If Joyce looks crazy to you because she’s talking about being a slave for god, or how the bible is literally true…it’s because she’s closer than you to the ‘official’ beliefs, not further away.
Biblical literalism hasn’t been Catholic dogma since at least Vatican II (note this is a different concept from the message being true, Biblical inerrancy). It’s more a fundamentalist and evangelical protestant thing.
Oops, just fact checked, I’m seriously rusty and made a serious error. There are actually 3 concepts, literalism (the Catholic dogma), inerrancy (the Protestant dogma) and infallibility (which is that it’s true with regards to matters of faith, i.e. the message is true) Honestly, as a layman I can find very little difference between literalism and inerrancy.
That should have been catholic dogma, as distinct from Catholic dogma. But I is an American and so for me Christianity means whatever a self-proclaimed Christian wants it to mean at the time of proclamation. If an American tells you that he or she is a Christian, that person has contributed a net zero amount of knowledge about her/his personal belief system.
Taking the Bible literally is always a strange concept to me because it’s a text that’s been highly summarized and edited, hundreds or thousands of years after the events described, and in different political times and often under a deadline. So many ancient manuscripts describe things in much greater detail, like the flood or Jesus’s deeply metaphorical philosophies.
Yeah, it sounds nuts if you describe it that way. Unfortunately, many folks learn it was written by eye-witnesses and that by being God-inspired its faithfulness is maintained despite its heavy translation.
You know.
Lies.
I’m a professional medievalist (really, the words after my name and everything — my specific degree is in English literature) and something I’ve talked about in my research is how in the middle ages scripture was more fluid than it became post-Reformation. It was more a collection of accepted practice, commentary, and the Bible rather than the Bible alone. Bible stories were considered to be both literal and allegorical.
This is still true today, but because of the Reformation and the assumption that you should cross-check everything against the Bible everything shades into literalism in some really unhealthy ways when it comes to American evangelical movements.
As far as anyone should be concerned, Christianity IS faith in the Bible. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. I can understand many people’s skepticism, but I’ve heard (from people who study this exclusively) that the Bible is incredibly accurate. The only errors that we know of so far since the Dead Sea scrolls are punctuation errors. That’s ridiculously improbable, but it happened.
The thing that most people forget when applying science is that improbability doesn’t mean impossibility.
Christianity being faith only in the Bible sounds an awful lot like idolatry to me.
And it depends on what you mean by “errors.” If you mean inconsistencies, then there are many. On what day was Jesus crucified? Who were his disciples? Who went to the empty tomb on Sunday and who did they see? Who did Jesus first appear to? Did Paul immediately seek out the Apostles in Jerusalem once he was converted or did he leave for Arabia for several years first?
Or if you mean transcription errors, then we’ve got a few to talk about here as well. What about the several verses added on at the end of Mark’s resurrection story? What about the added-in story of Jesus and the adulterous woman? What about half of Paul’s letters not actually being written by Paul but by forgers? What about the letters claimed to have been written by Peter and Jude but most certainly were not?
tl;dr: The people I’ve heard from (from people who study this exclusively) say the opposite of what you do.
Ok, for the gospels, Luke and Matthew were based off of Mark, and for Paul’s letters, it was the custom in the day that if you studied under or respected a person greatly, you would put their name in your teachings because it was not your knowledge but theirs that allowed you to have this information.
Yes, Luke and Matthew both have parts of themselves cribbed from Mark. (And also likely from a hypothetical document called Q.) But they also moved stuff around and changed them and ultimately contradicted their source material because they had divergent narratives and agendas. Saying that Luke and Matthew were based off Mark doesn’t solve the original problem of why they conflict with each other on very important details — it actually kind of makes the problem worse. If Mark is supposedly inerrant, then why was it altered by the other two authors for their own works? And if the whole of the Gospel is inspired, why would God let those changes happen in the first place?
And I laugh a little at the second part. The letters that claim to be by Paul but were actually written by other people were written in the second century AD, a hundred years after Paul was alive. No one who worked under him wrote them, and if any of them respected him, they wouldn’t have contradicted so strongly with what his genuine letters preach. That’s part of why we know stuff like Timothy 1/2 and Titus aren’t his — they’re so different in theology (not to mention word use). No one who forged a letter in Paul’s name respected him. They used his reputation to push ideas the real Paul would have been aghast at.
And while that sort of thing was indeed common at the time, it was in no way condoned. It was considered forgery and deception. It was supremely dishonest, which is a quality I’m pretty sure God isn’t supposed to be in favor of.
And then there’s the fact that surviving early copies of New Testament texts come in many different versions, usually grouped into “Alexandrian text-type”, “Byzantine text-type” and “Western test-type”. Which you use as a source for a translation makes a big difference! The King James mostly uses the Byzantine text-type (specifically a collection called the “textus receptus”), but more recent translations usually use the Alexandrian because most scholars believe it is earlier.
Then you’ve got the Comma Johanneum, which may have been a marginal note that some scribe accidentally included in the main text of the First Epistle of John when making a copy.
And that’s just New Testament stuff, not getting into the four sources hypothesis for the Pentateuch.
Even the tiniest translation errors can completely subvert meaning. The example given to me referred to a seed, appropriately, & changed the word ‘have’ to ‘had’. Written one way it was a message of hope, the other way it becomes scornful, & changes our understanding of the character of the participants.
We can’t even translate modern languages that accurately, never mind centuries-old spoken dialects.
The “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” thing comes to mind.
[“camel” being mistranslation of “thong”]
I would like to hear more about that, ‘cuz it’s the first I’ve heard of it! Google isn’t helping, either.
“Needle” being a mistranslation of “thong” would be even more awkward and awesome.
Sounds like the greek word kamelos (camel) vs kamilos (rope) confusion (which I only just now googled). But apparently the “rope” (mis?)translation appears only in later copies. The earliest manuscripts are all about the camel.
It was explained to me that the “Eye of the Needle” was the name of a gate that was too small for loaded camels to enter through. Maybe that was wrong.
Oh, that is definitely untrue. That’s a story folks made up so that it’s only slightly difficult for rich people to get into heaven rather than outright impossible. Such a gate never existed outside of wishful thinking.
The “Eye of the Needle” gate is a relatively recent fabrication, presumably intended as a hand-wave to keep prosperity gospel loons from feeling guilty about their greed.
Funny, I always thought that Christianity meant being a follower of Christ, what with it being called “Christianity” and not “Bibleism.”
Smart-assedness aside, IMHO, following the example of Jesus (which I’m not claiming to be tremendously good at, mind you) is a lot easier when you realize that the Bible did not arrive via fax from heaven, and a lot of it, quite frankly, does not jibe with his message and example of love, acceptance, and self-sacrifice.
Can I just a “Yes” to this?
I want a G+ button to +millions.
Yes; I think though it’s also a belief in the divinity of Christ. I like Christ’s philosophy as given in the Bible, but I don’t believe him to be divine, so I don’t consider myself Christian.
That said, an awful lot of Christian dogma comes from Paul, too, and some people seem to treat Jesus as a philosopher rather than as a Messiah, as an offshot of Jesuism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism).
Sounds like you have fallen victim to the typical religious snakeoil peddlers. As others have said in the other posts, and from the people who really are experts on the subject, the Bible is very far from accurate when discussing it’s historical, or scientific accuracy.
This whole argument is hilarious. As time goes on I find that some of these arguments/debates/whatever that happen in the comment section of Dumbing of Age are actually among the best reasons to continue reading the comic.
And in that note, I just have to add: keep in mind what they say about arguing on the internet.
i believe that children are our future.
Well yeah. They’re not our past.
Well technically they are.
They’re also in out present.
Logical Conclusion: Children are Time Lords, if not time itself.
Are you my mummy?
Go to your room!
I’m really glad that worked. Those would have been terrible last words!
You are wonderful.
Or rather, fantastic?
AHEM. “So teach them well and let them lead the way.”
I wanna dance with somebody!
Willis should tell his mom: “And Iiiiiii will always love youuuuuuu”
I believe that children are our future – unless we STOP THEM NOW!!
(shamelessly stolen from R. Stevens)
WELL TELL US THE STORY
Or check the Tumblr account.
Awwww, this made me smile 🙂
Joyce…Believe in the me that believes in you.
YOUR DRILL IS THE DRILL THAT WILL PIERCE THE HEAVENS! ◥▶◀◤
^^^^^^ +
127WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???
(Man, that anime was like WHACKY MANIC HIJINKS, WACKY MANIC HIJINKS, WACKY MANIC HIJINKS- Shit. Just. Got. Real.
It helped cure my depression, and so gets a place in my heart despite the, frankly pretty bad, first eight episodes.
It’s wonderful to think, even for a short while, that if you plant your feet and yell at the heavens you can force the stars themselves to spin to your will, so long as you want them to badly enough.
Eh. If you think the first few episodes are bad, blame 80’s giant robot anime, as that is what the first 3rd of the series is an homage to.
*SPOILERS ALERT* The death of Kamina brings you into the 90’s, the first serious mentions of Spiral Energy/Power bring you into the oughts, and the final episode goes where the writers wished the genre would go in the future. *END OF SPOILERS*
What I dislike about the first few episodes is the reliance on stupid gags, the poor quality of the animation, and the lack of any meaningful plot. You essentially get the first episode, which was decent, and then six or so episodes of mostly-filler that could’ve been condensed into two or three and have been much better.
After the first big battle the pacing, atmosphere, writing, and animation quality all improve markedly, and the jokes become less juvenile, making it much more enjoyable.
*Checks the different Getter Robo series release dates*
Okay, so you might be technically right about the first bit and wrong about the second (Shin). But this is if we’re basing it on Getter Robo, which TTGL has a crapload of homages to. Tomino started making robot series late 70ies early 80ies, after all… 🙂
Personally, I thought the TTGL ending was kind of stupid. But that’s much personal opinion.
People have pointed out that it’s generally the story of a boy becoming a man, and that Kill la Kill (also made by them) is the story of a girl becoming a woman. It’s funny how, despite all the fanservice and complete crazyness they have, they do actually have good meanings and morals behind them.
I saw an analysis of kill la kill that viewed it less as growing up, and more as moving on. Oh yeah, SPOILERS, both female leads had lost something precious to them. Ryoko lost her dad, and Satsuki lost her baby sister. They note how each turns to revenge as their grieving process, and that the best way they could handle it was, in essence, to move on. To face the challenge at hand, by letting go of the personal vendetta and focus on the danger the antagonists posed to the world as a whole. They said it was interesting to note that neither gave the finishing blow to the person that both had wanted to kill.
Corrections:
YOUR [sparkly man-dangle] IS THE [sparkly man-dangle] THAT WILL PIERCE THE [Ethan]! ◥▶◀◤
ok I’ll admit…that’s a very hilarious and canonical modification to the original quote i posted…kudos to you!
TTGL: 2007
Nanoha A’s: 2005, with “Raging Heart, if you believe in me then I’ll believe in you.” and a Starlight Breaker that pierces the
heavenWolkenritter Barrier.Nanoha being “magical girls as Gundams” I suspect both series are getting the sentiment from older anime.
A’s came out before TTGL? I did not realize that.
Oooooooh, will the next strips be a series of lone-Joyce serious self reflection monologues? I strangely find myself hoping so!
No, don’t you remember we have a SICK FIGHT to get to!
Awww, Dorothy’s face in the fourth panel. ^_^
She believes in you, Joyce. You have found someone during Freshman year who truly believes in you.
Congratulations, you have won college.
I remember getting a final paper back in Freshman English with the suggestion that I should a.) think about grad school and b.) submit the paper for publication. 2 years later, I’m presenting that paper at one of the biggest conferences in the country pretty soon.
Having someone who believes in you–truly, actually–believes in you is a wonderful thing.
I’m curious, what was the paper about?
Congrats! =D
I admit, I am a serious Doyce shipper. (Joyothy?) I LOVE their relationship. And I’m not even shipping on a sexy level, either. Everyone needs a friendly foil like this. They challenge each other to think outside of their own boxes. I love this!
awwwwwwwwwww
Believe in me, who believes in you, who beleves in me.
Roh roh fight the power?
I must be tired.. I read that as Ruh Roh Fight the power ><
To be fair, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen someone not just spell it “row”…
row row fight the power, gently down the stream
…now I need a video of Mystery Inc.’s final episode, “Come Undone,” set to Libera Me From Hell.
…what?
If pride in yourself is sinful, don’t believe in yourself. Believe in the me who believes in you!
Joyce is nothing without God.
So Joyce – God = 0.
Therefore Joyce = God. QED.
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your church bulletin.
But everyone is god. Which is almost the same as noone being god.
ALL PRAISE TO NOONE, THE EVERYGOD!
Tell me more about this “noon-ee”.
IT WAS GOD, I TELL YOU! GOD HAS BLINDED ME!
It’s not like an(other) act of hubris and/or blasphemy could get the gods any MORE pissed off at Odysseus than they were already.
Look, I’m Henery The Eighth, I Am was a good song, but Herman’s Hermits were not God.
What if god was all of us….just a stranger on a bus…as well as everyone else?
Rain is just God needing a shower. That’s why there’s so little rain in the desert: few people there.
If everyone is god, doesn’t that mean every single sexual act is masturbation? And isn’t masturbation sinful?
But well, who am I, to apply logic to religion?
Oh yes – God.
So, the Incredibles was another movie Joyce couldn’t watch, then.
If we are the body of Christ, as Christianity teaches, and Jesus is an aspect of God, then we are aspects of God.
Ambiguous grammar could also be interpreted as:
Joyce = 0 – God
Therefore –Joyce = God
Anti-Joyce is God?
I get your interpretation, but I think this result is better:
Joyce = 0 – God
Therefore Joyce – 0 = –God
Therefore Joyce = – God
Joyce is anti-God.
If Joyce is nothing without God, then in the same way, it mathematically follows God is nothing without Joyce– no matter which way you take the grammar. (Joyce-God=0, multiply by -1, God-Joyce=0. Joyce=0-God, add God to both sides, Joyce+God=0, subtract the Joyce, God=0-Joyce.)
In other words, Joyce is as important as God (which makes sense if she is God or the antiChrist/antiGod).
And Anti-Joyce is inside Joyce. X+(-Joyce)=Joyce. Therefore, X+God=Joyce. God is inside Joyce. And he isn’t coming out in this universe.
It saddens me greatly how common this belief is. Now, these days it’s “limited” to mostly the more authoritarian US Christian sects, but it used to be a fairly popular view and it’s just so soul crushing.
Of course, the leaders of the churches never seem to have any trouble feeling pride, they’re just careful to praise God for making them so awesome. It’s mostly a tool to keep the lay-people in line. A sort of brainwashing threat: “You’re nothing without this church and your faith. If you leave/question us you’ll be worth less than dirt. Dirt isn’t doing the devil’s work, but as soon as you doubt me you’ll be helping him damn humanity.”
It also gets used as a weapon against unbelievers. When you ask about heathens doing good things the reply from people who believe this is often along the lines of “Oh, that was God working through them, not them doing good of their own volition.” It becomes a way to discount any and all who you don’t agree with.
We humans can be a pretty damn messed-up species at times.
The reverse, bad deeds being the Devil working through you, is a good way to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions.
True, but again only for the leaders. “Normal” folk who “fall” do so because they were too weak and so it’s all their fault. Leaders who fall were tempted by the Devil, so it’s not their fault.
I do not pretend to be a great church leader, or someone who is deeply versed in the mysteries of the Universe, but I do read my scriptures and try to follow my faith, and what the good messages have taught me is that it IS God working through us, but doing the right thing requires inner strength that we have to choose to use.
Therefore, Dorothy is right, it was Joyce. Joyce is right, it was her want to do what God wants that moved her to stand up for her friend. And Dorothy is right to want Joyce to be proud of herself; she did a good thing. Pride is only a sin when some starts to think they’re better than others.
I think Dorothy and Joyce are really, really great for each other 🙂
I realized after posting my last sentence sounds like I ship Dorothy and Joyce. I don’t. Maybe Joyce’s sister and Dorothy? Would that be crazy?
Thank you for phrasing this as such
Actually you pretty much said what needed to be said.
Pretty much sums it up. When it comes to Christian theology (any Abrahamic theology really), one has to be able to understand where God’s will ends and God granted human free will begins. The fine distinctions between pride and hubris are unfortunately lost on much of the modern audience, to wit there is a failure to understand that attributing all responsibility to another, even God, for one’s own actions, whether positive or negative, is itself a form of hubris.
Oh hey, this reminds me of one of those TED talks I heard, from the lady who wrote Eat Pray Love. It was a while ago, but I think she talked about how long ago, the term ‘genius’ had a different meaning. If somebody was especially talented at an art or a job, they weren’t “a genius”, but rather they “had a genius”, or they were channeling a sort of entity of inspiration.
She had actually supported this concept, as it would take pressure off the artist if they could not come up with ideas, or have to worry about keeping up a self-image of them being talented or intelligent.
So just pointing this out because it looks really weird to me how it is now but shouldn’t Dorothy’s other eye be quasi-squinting too? In panel three I mean.
No. It’s an eye twitch. In animation and comics it’s become a tropic shorthand to show an emotion, usually frustration but sometimes anger, that is otherwise not easy to communicate visually. The fairly common O_o emote serves the same purpose via a similar visual shorthand.
I interpreted it as a way of representing the different angle her eyes are through her glasses; the near eye is being faced directly enough to show the detail around it, but the distant eye is not, and thus shows only the basics.
This line of thinking doesn’t work so well on panel 4, in which she’s viewed close to straight-on.
Wait if it’s an eye twitch then why are BOTH of her eyebrows curving like that? Doesn’t that normally denote that both of her eyes are doing a motion of some sort? The curved eyebrows are what made me question it initially.
I’d say thay Dorothy just outright bashing Joyce’s religion by saying it hurts hee to hear Joyce being religious pisses me off, but in the last two weeks Joyce has pretty much done the same thing to Dorothy.
I wouldn’t say that Dorothy is saying that “Joyce being religious” hurts her. That is being way too general. It is more that Dorothy is hurt that Joyce thinks that nothing good she does is her own accomplishment.
It’s not that Joyce is religious that’s the problem, it’s that Joyce has said that she is literally worthless without God acting through her. That she is nothing but a puppet that a deity uses to advance its own agenda and that her life and accomplishments are meaningless.
Now, that is part of Joyce’s religion, but any religion that teaches that is toxic and controlling and, frankly, deserves to be bashed.
Soooo… it’s Dorothy’s affirmation of Joyce that pisses you off, not what Joyce states as her beliefs.
Well, okay.
That tells me things about you.
I’m having trouble parsing this.
From what I’ve gathered, Dorothy has been pretty open about being 1. atheist and 2. okay with Joyce being Christian [to the point of GOING TO CHURCH WITH HER because YAY SOCIALIZING]. Joyce has freaked out about Dorothy’s atheism [and admits to being disappointed that this is where they can’t have similar interests] BUT 1. accepts that it is not her place to convert someone who isn’t interested and 2. has confessed to being curious about non-believer lifestyles.
tl;dr: I think they’ve agreed to disagree in the interest of being friends, and friends ARE occasionally going to point out things that don’t quite jive with them, as friends do. Dorothy [and any good friend] is right to say ONCE that, “This aspect of X doesn’t sit well with me.”
Jen you actually phrased that rather well. Good job.
The problem with Joyce I think is her reliance on the religious aspects of faith rather than the spiritual ones.
Dorothy is wrong, of course, that believing that relying on God makes someone a puppet or makes them lesser somehow…after all it could be argued that God gave Joyce the strength she has to see good in people (Christian or otherwise) and the wisdom not to judge them.
But that being said Joyce isn’t entirely right to believe some of that isn’t her either. Just having the tools God gave us doesn’t mean we always use them. A good many people go through life never achieving their full potential because they are held back by fear. We still have free will.
Personal pride is not a sin. Raising yourself up as your own god however would be….but somehow I doubt that telling your parents when they’re out of line would count in that regard 🙂
Its good that Joyce and Dorothy are friends and tolerant to each other’s views on spirituality. Joyce hopefully will learn that God won’t begrudge her swearwords and the occasional need to fulfill certain very human desires. And hopefully Dorothy will appreciate that perhaps having faith in something beyond oneself isn’t always a weakness.
And as for Walky….well, he’s just Walky. LOL!
Dorothy *does* already have faith in something beyond herself. She believes in Joyce, for instance.
Yeah, I didn’t interpret it as “OMG I’M SO OFFENDED”, more that D is hurt for J’s sake. Even though she doesn’t realise that that’s what gives Joyce strength, I guess?
Ugh this is really fucked up though, this attitude of ‘you yourself are worth nothing, everything you do is god acting through you’. No matter Joyce (and people who grew up in similar circumstances) often have self-esteem issues. I mean, I have a hard enough time believing in myself on a daily basis (and often fail) and I was raised by completely agnostic parents. I can’t believe how diffiult self-esteem must be to come by for Joyce, who has clearly been questioning certain things she’s been taught since going to a secular college and making all sorts of different friends. I guess it’s easier for people who never question anything. But those people have other issues, not neccesarily self-esteem. But ugh yeah. Long comment, sorry, I just hate that this happens to children/people 🙁
no *wonder (idk, it’s 6am lol)
The idea of people not being allowed to take pride in what they do is an alien concept to me. Even my religious parents never said anything of the sort from what I can remember. Then again, if there’s anything I’ve learned by now, it’s that my upbringing isn’t necessarily indicative of others’ experience.
Tell me about it. I’m Roman-Catholic and what I was taught was mainly “don’t be an asshole”. I’m still wondering about how many Christian denominations exist over in the USA – and how many of them would be on a watchlist where I live.
So many denominations. So many.
And a lot like Joyce, who are non-denominational. Which can be…
Okay. You say you’re Roman Catholic, so you’re part of a tradition that puts a lot of effort into interpreting and understanding religious ideas, and priests helping to give guidance to the laity.
A lot of the non-denominational groups are really big on sola scriptura, and often hold the KJV as the single perfect immutable Word of God. They take it as read that anyone should be able to read the Bible and get the Truth unambiguously delivered. You can’t, of course–the Bible is a collection of disperate books from multiple authors written over thousands of years–but a lot of non-denominational “Bible believing” Christians hold that disagreement isn’t just difference of interpretation, it’s foolishly or maliciously going against the one true word of God Almighty.
It sometimes strikes me as odd, that some of these non-denominational churches sound far more dogmatic than the Catholic Church I’m familiar with. A friend and I once discussed some parts with our local bishop and he was very tolerant.
To contrast that: My brother’s ex-girlfriend was a member of a non-denominational church and seemed to had very strict views about religion – she later changed to one that was far worse, one that definitively brain-washed its members.
In my experiences, free churches seem to be a mixed bag where I’m from. Some of them are very ‘normal’ – but others are more like cults, viewing other people as heretics.
They also don’t seem to know very much about the very book they ‘understand’. The New Testament contains stories that were translated from Hebrew(?) to Greek to Latin and finally to over a hundred different languages. There are some translation errors and misconceptions.
In my opinion, the Bible and other religious books are merely guidelines rather than ‘the word of God himself’. It’s written by humans and therefore has to be at least somewhat faulty. Even the priests I talked with said that the stories in the bibles have to be intepreted.
Maybe it’s a misconption of mine, but following the strict letter instead of understanding the lesson sounds more like something people would accuse Roman Catholics of instead of being something free churches would do. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Well, at least we don’t have to put up with some of the more – extreme groups here. Hatemongering and such are not protected by freedom of speech or religion here.
The non-denominational churches in the US run the gamut as well, but it makes sense that the crazies would be even crazier on this continent, being the spiritual (and I suppose literal in some cases) descendents of the puritans that moved here when Europe got sick of their judgmental asses all those years ago.
Also, the more “extreme” sects also tend to be the ones more focused on “saving souls” and winning converts, while the more moderate ones are tend to be much more willing to live and let live and let their actions speak for them. Actions may speak louder than words, but unfortunately, words yelled into a TV camera speak louder than actions.
Now that you mention it – it was always a pet theory of mine that we just put all of our religious nutcases on a ship und sent them off to America as soon as we got word that it existed.
Where I live most of the religions seem to live very comfortable with each other – most of the radical fringe cases are denied their forum and suffer penalties, if they break a law. That’s what I meant when I said that hatemongering isn’t a protected right here – if you abuse your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech to limit another person’s right – you’ll get punished.
I guess that’s why we don’t get people like the WBT and such over here. They would just get fined into oblivion or end up in prison. Worst case, you’d end up on a watch list like the Salafists and Scientology did.
No offense, but I never understood how some of these people can do what they want unpunished in the US. Maybe I just don’t the legal system.
While I’m no historian or religious scholar, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that the US’s religious and speech freedoms are, in part, a reaction to the decided lack of same in the portions of the colonies controlled by the puritans.
Also, the establishment of the US as a secular nation still isn’t sitting well with the descendents of those who wanted a theocracy on this side of the pond, even after 200 years, which probably influences them doubling down on the crazy.
Generally speaking, the situation in western Europe seems much more enlightened than in the US. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of geography, with people from multiple diverse cultures regularly interacting as equals.
IMHO: The isolation of North America offered an excellent growth medium for groups of people who believed “our way is the one true way”. Not only is it mostly cut off from the rest of the world, but its abundance of land allowed highly isolated settlements to exist for over a century. There’s a sort of insanity or paranoia in a person who separates from society, and it’s apparently true even for groups existing separate from a larger, more diverse whole.
The US is still a reflection of this isolation. News is mostly US-only by comparison. There’s a popular attitude that the US is first and best in all things. The fundamentalist religion and politics seems fueled by a rejection of diversity and equality. Etc., etc.
There is a whole lot of “the bible needs to be interpreted” hogwash going on in order to fit it into one’s favorite belief systems and paganism. It turns out that the sources of both Old and New Testament are quite consistent and translations are pretty solid.
Yes, one can haggle over single words a lot but those are details. The short and the long point is that the Bible, not just the Old but also the New Testament, matches neither modern Christian lifestyle, morality, or beliefs.
There was actually quite a debate some centuries A.D. whether it would be better to abandon all of the Old Testament and not make it part of Christian Scripture. It was not before Jerome that an actual translation from the Hebrew to Latin (without going through the non-Christian Greek Septuagint scholarly version) was done, and certainly with a view towards getting closer to how they “must have been intended” from a “Christian” rather than heathen/hellenistic/scholarly view (the Septuagint was done centuries before 1AD).
At any rate: preaching is done on cherry-picked passages. “Good Christians” rely on their shepherds to figure out a religion and a moral from the old books and tend to have selected knowledge of the scriptures.
There is nothing wrong with finding solace and guidance for oneself in old wisdom and rules. It’s getting problematic where one considers it more important to get others to believe what oneself, actually, is rather doubtful of. “I could believe much better if I burnt everyone who doesn’t” is not a recipe for peace of mind or body.
Joyce saddens me so much.
As does that story. Mr. Willis, it continues to impress me how you’ve managed to grow as a storyteller and human being considering the incredibly restrictive environment you grew up in.
*Gives Dorito tacos of your flavor of choice.*
Pride in yourself is not sinful. EXCESS pride is. Nearly none is simply not healthy. Balance. Because the alternative is saying you’re nothing. Nothing without another. That’s codependence.
Yeah, exactly. That’s precisely what religions want you to feel like. They want you to feel like you’re nothing without it.
Not at all. That’s what some religions want you to feel like. Mostly the cult-like ones.
Look, I’m an ex-Presbyterian, current-Atheist, I’m not a fan of religion, but it’s no good tarring them all with the same brush.
When you’re talking about Pride in terms of Christian morality, Pride is assumed to be excess. When it’s not excessive, it’s simple having healthy self-esteem.
Huh, that’s an interesting way to put it.
CS Lewis put it best, I think.
You’re allowed and encouraged to be happy that something good was done, but it’s wrong to only be happy if you’re the one who did it.
Basically, if you’re happy that world hunger is solved, great! If you’re responsible for it, awesome! However, if world hunger is solved, and you’re being mopey because it was Fred next door that solved it, you’re a prideful asshole.
That example instead sounds like envy that someone else got credit.
Glad to be of help. I see a lot of myself two or three years ago in Joyce, but it does depress me to see the results of her upbringing (which I understand to be similar to Mr Willis’s upbringing) in such a distorted version of Christianity.
As a non-Christian (ex-Christian really), this viewpoint was ALWAYS terrible. As if God is so in need of praise and puffing up he would create worthless creatures in his own image so that he could show off by making them do worthwhile things. Of course there are plenty of Christians who find this idea extremist as well, but it certainly sounds familiar.
Yeah, that’s what bugs me about an “all-knowing omnipotent God”: If nothing is greater than Him, then He could only create inferior things.
[no logic-breaking with “He is so great that He could create an even more powerful God” because what does that even mean then]
The reverse, of simple things creating more complex things, is really cool, and says there is NO UPPER LIMIT to our understanding of the universe. So much cooler than “all the answers have already been decided.”
It’s because it’s a misunderstanding, and CS Lewis, again, puts it best.
God wants us to become his children. Currently, we’re basically equivalent to toy soldiers — we have the image of god, but lack the omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. The tools he gives us, which he is totally responsible for, are still US — even if you make the hammer yourself, you’re still using the hammer to bash in the nail.
We ARE the good and bad parts of ourselves, and what the Hymnel thing seemed to take too literally, to the point of self-deprecation, is that we’re supposed to remember that everything (which, honestly, means good and bad) comes from God…basically, so we don’t devolve into full-on JohnGaltism, claiming that we don’t owe anything to anyone, and are totally and solely responsible for where we are today.
Yeah, what I don’t like is the “My Dad can beat up your Dad” aspects of *some people’s* Christianity. The Dads are irrelevant–I don’t like the attitude.
Hey gang, Swerve here. I’m sitting in Hoist’s habitat suite while he gives my phone a look.
I’m not really sure I’m qualified to discuss Dorothy and Joyce’s divergent world-views, but then again that’s stopped me from discussing anything ever before! Hoist could definitely back me up on that, right Hoist?
So I guess Joyce and Dorothy are gonna agree to disagree about this and let their friendship blossom? I’m still not sure what the whole debate is over. I don’t think Joyce gets the difference between self-esteem, pride. Optimus Prime has self-esteem, Tracks has pride. Prime is probably the humblest ‘Bot in the galaxy, but he knows that he needs to believe in himself, or his soldiers won’t believe in him. Prime has
“The Touch”!
Hoist says there’s nothing wrong with my phone and wants me out of his hab-suite. Well, good to know!
I must admit, this is the sort of thing that really gets me in trouble around religious folk of this type.
The fact that I don’t believe that their god exists, they can often deal with, even if it disturbs them. The fact that if their god did exist, I would believe him unworthy of worship, due to being an egomaniacal jackass, is a lot harder to wrap their heads around.
That’s not an uncommon problem. It can also include rival religious groups. Back on Cybertron, the Militant Monoform Movement was a fringe religious group who rejected belief in Adaptus, the god of Transformation. The MMM members didn’t necessarily deny that Adaptus existed (at least not all of them), but they definitely denied that he was worthy of worship, to the point where they would have their Transformation Cogs surgically removed (preventing them from ever being about to change modes ever again). To those who did believe in Adaptus, removing one’s T-Cog was seen as self-mutilation, and even worse an act of desecration, since believers considered every T-Cog to be a microcosm of Adaptus’ immortal form.
So there you have it: one group (Adaptus worshippers) believing that Transformation is a sacred act, and another (Triple-M members) considering having more than one form to be heresy. Needless to say, heated arguments often arise around Triple-M’s, and they’ve faced lots of prejudice. 🙁
Aye, this is one of the largest apparent hypocrisies of modern day Christianity IMO. If God is so all loving, then why do good people who’s only flaw is that they don’t believe in him or worship him go to hell? That doesn’t sound very loving, it sounds petty and selfish and jealous.
Well, for a very long time, the answer has been “if they’re good, they’re worshiping God even if they don’t think they are.”
A lot of modern sects have shied away from that answer, but they’re also usually the ones saying you’ll go to hell if you worship him the “wrong” way, like if you get blood transfusions or other nonsense, so yeah.
Most organized Christianity outside of the US is actually a lot more relaxed and liberal, at least until you get to the parishes where ethnic hatred is more important to everyone than whichever religion they hold.
Not pride confidence ,one must have confidence and see selth worth.Only when do you have to much of it does it become a problem, self love is dangerous, you must never put yourse above everything else that is what pride is.
Didn’t mean to get poetic .
The connection is…. weak. Pride is one thing, someone respecting you for your OWN inner strength? I dunno. Be humble would be my suggestion.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand what humility actually is. Optimus Prime is a very humble person, probably the most humble person I’ve ever met. He’s also incredibly confident in his abilities, especially when he leads troops into battle. The two concepts, being self-confident, while still being incredibly humble, are not mutually exclusive. (BTW, did you know I have a picture of Optimus Prime, Ultra Magnus and Rodimus sitting together, in my bar!)
Joyce’s parents and religious leaders clearly don’t have as much wisdom as Prime does, or they would have taught Joyce that humility is good and so is self-esteem and self-confidence. Maybe Dorothy can point this out to her with a few choice compliments.
I believe it was CS Lewis who said that humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.
Ooooh, nice. I like both the idea and the way it’s worded.
Yes, Mere Christianity is a great antidote to some of the Xtian crazies.
If you say so. We all read it and it didn’t seem to curb us none.
Well, there’s reading and reading for comprehension, if you get my drift. Some people read and the words flow into their heads and then make no impression. Others read and understand and remember what they read.
Where’s my fusion cannon?
Aren’t you an Autobot now?
Oh! Uh, captain! Um, yeah, I’m pretty sure I saw Whirl carrying it towards one of the airlocks. Not sure why. Or how he got it. I’m pretty sure that Ultra Magnus locked it in his office until he was sure you had memorized the Autobot code. How’s that coming along, by the way? You should totally ask Tailgate for help learning it!
Not giving people credit for the things they do because you believe it all comes from God is one of my biggest pet peeves.
It doesn’t help matters any that when I almost bled to death, my mother’s reaction was “I’m so grateful to God for giving you the idea to call 911”
No, I can figure out for myself than when blood is gushing out of me, I should probably call 911. That doesn’t require divine intervention.
Actually, I don’t entirely agree with Dorothy on this one….and Joyce isn’t entirely accurate at the end either.
A proper Christian believes that God gives them the tools they need. Joyce seems to believe that having faith and believing that God is there and helps you is a weakness, that it diminishes the individual (Joyce) and makes them think lesser of themselves. That is far from true.
Faith is what sustains a good many people, but trusting in God is not a crutch.
It could be argued that God already gave Joyce the personal strength she needed, and to see good in people regardless of if they share her faith or not.
I think in Joyce’s case she’s too hung up on the religious aspects of faith rather than the spiritual and personal aspects of it. For instance she is not going to damage her soul because she feels human desires like wanting to bang someone or dropping just one “damn” every once in awhile.
Sooner or later Joyce will find a balance between her faith in God’s plan for her and her place in the world, while expanding beyond her shell and living for herself and finding some happiness. Having personal pride is not a sin, only living for that pride and glorifying oneself is technically.
Okay that’s my two cents….now hopefully we’ll see some girl on girl action next scene. And I mean a certain super hero and an certain biker girl having an epic showdown (though the other wouldn’t be a disappointment either Willis).
I believe Joyce would take issue with your use of the term ‘proper’ christian.
She is invested in what she believes in. We believe she is wrong, she does not. Nobody likes being wrong. Unless it’s about something terrible.
I succeeded? God gave me the strength to do so. I failed? That was God’s will.
That’s king Horik right there!
Man this hurts- I believed that for ages, though it wasn’t an explicit aspect of my belief system, I picked up somewhere that it was sinful and made people hate you. The damage I’ve had to undo from training myself not to ever view any of my achievements in a positive light was immense and it took years.
Man, this exactly. This is part of why this strip is so important – because fifteen years or so after my church and parents’ marriage exploded violently, I still can’t take a compliment without cringing.
Perhaps I am ready too far into it, but to me this looks a lot like a case of a double Author Avatar, where each character is representing one side of the author.
Joyce represents younger!Willis, who was a good guy full of dreams and hopes but also extremely naive kid who though that “sex was slaving” and “drinking one beer will end up with one of your friends dead”.
On the other hand, Dorothy represents current!Willis trying to deal with his past self, explaining himself that you need to take agency for actions and believe in yourself.
Aw
I hadn’t taken it quite that far (and not saying that you’re not right to do so), but it seemed pretty clear to me that this was Willis going, “hey here’s the origin of my self-esteem problems” which makes me :/ at all the people in the comments going NO REALLY IT’S NOT THAT BAD.
At about the age of 12 I asked the minister why would God ask a man to tie his own child to an altar and kill him, just to show how much he loved God and would do as commanded to do?
The minister told me that it was not up to me to judge God, but leave that to the ministry to do.
I then told the minister ‘why should I do that, I was only a kid, but I could read. And reading that in the Bible, made me think a God that would do that to a man wasn’t much of a God. Because if he was truly all seeing and all knowing, He would not need to do such an awful thing, he would KNOW if he was loved.
Being a several generation Pagan, my mother urged my brother and I to attend churches of all denominations and learn from it. I learned.
Oh, that one’s easy. God in his glory gave Abraham the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate his love for God, and his love was vindicated because God in his mercy deigned to let Isaac off the hook, leaving Abraham both with glory as well as his son.
If you want to get to passages that are not all that easy to shrug off, try the psalms where David wants God to take the children of their foes and dash their skulls on the rocks. That’s not exactly a good passage for arguing against schoolyard violence.
The maze of cleanliness and uncleanliness and purification rules are also of the kind you don’t want to overstress in order not to get to the “so it’s ok to ignore all of the rules in the Bible?” point. Yes, one can try the “in deep humility we ask our Lord to forgive us our transgressions against his word since he welcomes repentant sinners” angle, but why wouldn’t that also hold if you dash the skulls of your foes’ little ones…
It’s also sobering when a non-Hebrew woman asks Jesus to have mercy on her and heal her daughter and he, after silently ignoring her for a while, tells her “it is not meet that one take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs”. Ok, this story ends well after all since in spite of being a foreigner the woman does exhibit Jewish wit and chutzpah, but it is a close call.
I remember reading about the siege of Jericho in bible school and having the read the lines; “Leave no stone atop another and leave no man, woman, or child alive.” in our distilled children’s version of things.
Seemed a bit unnecessary to me.
My favourite religious-themed Tweet:
Have you ever tried to piece together a drunken night with your friends the next day? Then you understand how the Gospels were written.
@Jesus_M_Christ
I like the core idea behind Christianity, but some of the tweaks I find objectionable. The Bible seems too crowdsourced for me to fully back.
@idon’tcarenomore.
Oooh, I’m interested! Since you’re Pagan, what do you follow exactly? What do you find more logical, reasonnable in it than in the dogmas of the churches of various denominations?
Joyce’s religion fills me with rage. ‘Nuff said. Peace out.
Your song about Whitney Huston’s son reminded me of a bit I read on a Christian site about some Christian singer that was fond of singing the song: “Big Yellow Taxi.”
Basically they ragged on this singer as an example of how she was not truly a Christian because Paradise is not man’s to destroy but God’s to give…
Sometimes people get a little too stuck on things.
Speaking as a pantheist, since all of humanity is God and God is humanity, the video is entirely right. It’s also a reminder that everyone is part of something infinitely greater and beautiful.
Well, the part where God hates labor unions is a tad bit out there.
It takes a certain amount of mutual respect to turn rejection of someone’s core beliefs into a compliment.
It’s probably helped that the core beliefs being rejected are “you suck.”
Is that how Joyce sees it? I would have thought it was more “God is awesome” than “I suck”. (A bit more thoughtless Dorothy could easily have said “God sucks” rater than “You are awesome”)
Well, the reason that God is awesome is that you suck. They kind of go hand-in-hand. If you didn’t suck, you wouldn’t need salvation in the first place. You can say “God is awesome” constantly without ever explicitly saying “you suck,” but the subtext is always there and understood. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23.
Hm. But everyone was also supposedly created in God’s image, so we can’t all completely suck…
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
If we were made in God’s image, and we suck, does that mean God also sucks?
No matter how meticulously and perfectly you mold and paint a turd in the image of filet mignon, it’s still going to be a turd when you bite into it.
“Hey, we can’t really be dumb if we’re following God’s orders.
Let’s get serious. God knows what he’s doing, he wrote this book here
And the book says he made us all to be just like him
So if we’re dumb…
Then God is dumb
(And maybe even a little ugly on the side)”
– Frank Zappa, “Dumb All Over”
This is true. Nobody is quite perfect, but total depravity would seem to make salvation nearly impossible.
The point of salvation is so you don’t have to worry about sinning. It’s a way for us, as humans who make mistakes and have flaws, to be in the sight of Him who is perfect, without worrying that we aren’t perfect. The entire point is so we don’t compare ourselves with God, which is clearly what is wrong in Joyce’s beliefs.
I don’t disagree with you entirely, Willis. There are many people taught that “God is awesome and you suck” is the way of Christianity. But my belief is that God doesn’t care and doesn’t want us to care. Romans 5:8 says about as much.
I’m not and never was Christian, but this makes sense to me. Wouldn’t the point of a Christian God be to basically accept *everyone’s* flaws, beliefs and viewpoints, whether they’re Christian/Muslim/Jewish or not? As opposed to insisting we be utterly perfect even though we’re actually, by definition, flawed creatures?
I’m baffled by people who insist that God will only save the followers of their religion.
Would be nice if Christians actually saw it that way instead of killing us Jews for their entire existence. :/
Is that how you were taught, Willis? It’s kind of hard for me to get behind the “Fallen Nature of Humanity” the same way we got behind “We’re made in God’s image.” Then again, those two sides of religion have always been at war.
I hate to get into this. But here goes…
A person begin good and God being good are not mutually exclusive. It may get twisted around to seem that way, but the relationship between a Christian and God’s grace is more like the relationship between a bowl and ice cream. The bowl doesn’t create the ice cream. It’s just a vessel for containing it. The bowl itself doesn’t have to be delicious and sweet in order to be a good bowl.
As far as Christianity is concerned, we can all be good people. Anyone can be a good person. We should all try to be good people! It’s not meaningless.
A Christian can be a vessel for God’s grace. I don’t want to get into an argument about what that means over the internet.
I’ve said in the past that the quality of a taco salad could be judged by the taste of the bowl it’s served in. I suppose that might hold true for ice cream and its serving container, too.
Original sin?
Huh, I always thought that was my secular-meanspirited-misinterpretation-of-what-those-wacky-Christians-really-believe rather than what they really believe. Then I’m really glad Dorothy handled it as well as she did.
I mentioned earlier in the comments that nobody likes being wrong. Except about terrible things. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to presume that having the core belief of “you suck” is pretty terrible. Sure, you can lie to yourself and believe that “you suck” is a good thing, but deep down it will still feel bad even if you don’t admit it, even to yourself.
With this in context, I think it can be assumed that Joyce is beginning to doubt her beliefs. Usually such doubt would be called a crisis of faith, and undoubtedly that’s what her family will call it when they find out, but I do doubt very much that Joyce will see it as a crisis so much as newfound freedom.
One thing I have found interesting about other Christians is their extreme guilt and disapproval in regards to them being human. Romans 8:1 specifically says that we shouldn’t feel condemned. But some people go about about it bass-ackwards thinking they’re being humble.
My point is that I agree with you that having a belief of “I suck” is destructive and useless. It’s amazing how perverted the Christian beliefs on humility have become.
Having not read Walky-verse Joyce I don’t know her future faith beliefs but will Dumbiverse Joyce ever renounce her religion or just settle for a less stringent version?
I think that’s what we’re here to find out. (Among other things.)
My personal theory is that she’ll become a liberal atheist porn lady.
And also First Lady.
I doubt she’ll renounce her faith but she’ll probably settle for a more tolerant view of it.
Kinda sad that you can’t actually have that conversation in real life. I mean, maybe some of you could but if I told any of my friends that it hurt me to know they believed a certain thing, that would be the beginning of a long and painful argument.
I get the feeling you misunderstood what Dorothy was saying. She wasn’t saying it hurts her that she believes in god, it hurts her to hear her say that Joyce is, “Nothing without Him.” When Joyce herself has shown that she is her own person, or at least is becoming her own person.
Through the practice of Reiki, I have gotten real results through a higher power flowing through me. However, I don’t attribute this to the god of any religion, much less an old book. My relationship to the divine is similar to my relationship with water. Both are sacred, but I don’t pray to them. Water is inside me, and so is the divine, both in a similar way. But neither water nor divinity has demanded anything of me. Not worship, not undying devotion, not prayer, not even faith or belief. Faith and belief are needed when you find it neccessary to tap into something you can’t prove, based on second hand knowledge. I don’t have faith. I have the knowledge that there are many things flowing through me that compose me. I know that I am powerful and strong because of the water in my blood and the electricity in my brain. I am the combination of many natural forces. However, I do not worship them, at least not in the same unhealthy way as Joyce. I have pride in myself, and I can still tap into the higher powers, which are just as much mine as my own blood.
Sounds like you’re an adherent of belief in Bod.
In some ways, Bod is kind of a drop-in replacement for God. We all have Bod inside us – we are all part Bod. Our Bod is one of the holiest things we know. It makes a lot of sense to say “I’ll climb this mountain, Bod willing.”
But Bod is not perfect. Bod is one of the tools you’re born with. You own your Bod, and your Bod owns you – this is a mystery.
In a Bod-centric worldview, you sin by partaking enough of something that it becomes a poison to you, or by doing something when your gut is clearly telling you that it’s wrong. (Think of the subjects’ reactions to the Milgram experiments.)
In direct contrast to Christianity, separation from Bod happens at the end of your life, and is natural. It is not something that needs to be feared, but trying to postpone it is just fine.
Even non-believers in Bod spend most of their time following the wishes of their Bod.
Some extremists try to deny Bod, and a few (ascetics, and so on) even succeed. (Yoga masters probably aren’t trying to deny Bod so much as develop a special relationship with Bod. But it depends on the person.)
On the other hand, one of the major flaws of Christianity is that it teaches that Bod is dangerous, perhaps even bad and sinful!
Next up: Walky Performs in a Threesome
Yeah, more “Williporn!”
David, you are 1 of 2 reasons I got a Slipshine account again. The other one is the work of Josh Lesnick.
Both girls are right…….Yeah, believe it or not, seemingly contradicting things create a needed balance.
I love Dorothy’s twitchy expressions in the second and third panels. It seems like a mix of worrying about Joyce’s feelings, worrying that Joyce will be angry, affection for Joyce, and maybe even a little embarrassment at saying something so sincere and a little corny. I’m glad Dorothy went ahead and said it, and I think Joyce had the best reaction we could hope for. It’s a very sweet moment.
I hope this self-esteem subplot helps her figure out that she needs to break up with Ethan. She’s obviously bothered that her boyfriend isn’t attracted to her, romantically or sexually. Maybe the double realizations of how happy Dorothy and Walky are together, plus this little ego boost, will help her realize that both of them deserve better.
I’ve never understood how that kind of uber-humility doesn’t also involve acknowledging that it is prideful to think your way is the only correct way.
Because it isn’t “your” way. It’s “God’s” way, and one merely follows it.
And it isn’t prideful to say that your interpretation of His word (and assumptions regarding what is and isn’t His word) is completely correct and everybody else’s is completely wrong?
Is Walky’s name now “Production Quality”?
sigh….as a Christian, the comments here have been rather hurtful.
Im sorry we don’t agree. Don’t have to be mean folks.
What did the internet teach you about reading comments?!?
You should never take internet comments seriously. I’m pretty sure most people here are not posting under their real names. It’s like the old saying goes: “On the Internet no one knows you’re a turbofox”!
Anyway, my advice is to either ignore idiotic comments completely, or to actually seek out the intelligent people. Like me! I’m a certified metallurgist, I’ve fought in a four million year long war, and I run a bar on a spaceship! cj95, you should be reading my comments. Since I only discuss things I’m familiar with, like Cybertronian new religious movements, galactic politics, the atomic weight of Unobtainium, how to distill engex, whether my phone is working or not, and the whereabouts of Megatron’s missing fusion cannon, you should read my comments!
/swerve
Especially I have been using the aforementioned concepts as metaphors to discuss the religious and political issues Willis raises in his webcomic without offending individuals like yourself. Or Willis. Damn you Willis!
If you own your religion, you can defend it. Accept that people will dissect your beliefs and give criticism. The only good thing you can do, in my humble opinion, is know more about what you are preaching. Investigate your holy book deeper and from the context of a larger spectrum of divine study. You should dissect and examine your scriptures to know them better than those who would dissect them first. If you do this, and you find irrecconcilable weaknesses and contradictions to what you thought you truly believed, maybe its time to find a new religion, or at the very least a new point of view.
D’AWWWW (It’s all “D’awwws” today in the Walkyverse! I wander what horrible things are waiting around the corner)
wonder*
Possibly some people more Christian than me (which is everybody, my negasoul is fully disempowered by the ungod) can disentangle the theological point arising from today’s comic;
If all the good things we do are God working through us, and (presumably) all the bad things we do are Satan working through us, what is the purpose of free will if it functions merely as a toggle between God and Satan, a binary switch – if all the works of humanity are mere window-dressing for a series of flips of the coin, to what purpose does humanity exist?
I’ll readily grant that my understanding of Christian theology may be flawed, skewed towards certain denominations, et cetera, and I own and acknowledge my obvious bias in this subject.
Some christian denominations do seem to believe that all bad we do is the work of the devil. In such a case, the purpose of humanity would be to allow God to work through us to love and serve him.
Conversely, it is possible to hold the belief that all good we do would be God working through us, but all the bad we do would be our own fault for selfishly failing to allow God to give us the strength to make the right decision.
Finally, it is possible to believe that God created the universe and intended it to be a good thing. Free Will is also a good thing, as it gives us the opportunity to choose right from wrong, thereby giving both concepts meaning. It is our own decision to do wrong and sin, however because God gave us free will as something that is good, when we choose to follow his plan, we are doing good – and we are only able to do good because he gave us Free Will. If we did not have Free Will, then the concepts of goodness and evil would be meaningless simply because they were forced on to us, so we could have no knowledge of the other.
Finally, the last idea (often tacked on to others) is that God will give strength and courage to do the right thing to those who want to do his will.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all of those viewpoints discussed above for a few reasons. One of the simplest is that two people who fight for opposite things, and claim their strength comes from God, can both seem to have amazing strength and courage – but clearly, if they are against each other, they cannot both be fighting for what is right. As of such, only one of them could get fortitude and courage from God. But the other, opposing, person also has fortitude and courage. Thus, God is not the only source of fortitude and courage. If God is not the only source of fortitude and courage, then not all good can come from God, since some goodness & love would have come from people with fortitude and courage that did not come from God.
The “all good is God working through us” and “all evil is the Devil” is a metaphor, not a literalism. EVERYTHING is God’s doing since the universe, God, and everything is all tied-together like the no. 42. It’s why the Force works as a metaphor for Western religion as well.
Joyce and others who believe God is the only good thing in the universe are taking it out of context (in religion? I KNOW! WHO KNEW!) by creating a religion that humanity is sinful and evil without God. Which, while true, ignores that humanity is AWESOME and wonderful because God made us that way.
Humanity is so awesome and wonderful that God killed all but six of us, plus most of the rest of the planet’s organisms just to be sure.
I take it you didn’t like Darren Aronofsky’s latest movie? 😉
And don’t forget, after He promised to never do it again, he began to order us to kill each other in His name! (If the Old Testament is to be taken literally).
Its in Deuteronomy! About chapters 20-25!
To be fair, Willis, that was when we were all mostly immortal and lived as long as elves. Oh and literally everyone on the planet was a jackass but Noah’s group–and one of his kids ra…you know, I think we can just stop and agree to say Genesis is a weird book.
I would have to disagree that humanity is awesome. We are insignificant compared to the rest of the universe, and we act in horrible ways toward each other in the name of religion and the God who supposedly created us. While I am not saying goodness stems from God (I believe that humans are perfectly capable of love independent of God), I would have to disagree that we have any capacity for goodness as a result of God. We have good qualities because groups of social creatures like humans that behave altruistically toward each other at least some of the time are more likely to survive than groups of social creatures where there is less kindness and love. Our ability to love, to be good and kind, to feel passion and happiness and sadness, are present in us because such qualities are advantageous to the survival of social creatures, and being social is advantageous when you don’t have claws or tough hide or sharp teeth. We are the way we are in large part due to evolution.
If you believe in God, then acknowledge his grandeur in his capacity to create a universe so complex that it can create life with the capacity to love, and yet simple enough that the life in that universe can begin to comprehend it. But I find little evidence that such a God would have any care for humanity.
On the issue of the universe. It’s beautiful, majestic, and wonderful but not a bit of it matters as much as the smile of a child.
🙂
The smile of a child is fleeting – we claim to care more about the eternal than the temporary. Both are beautiful, but it think the whole of physical reality matters far more than such a small and fleeting part of it as a smile.
Since this seems to be “Personal confessions night”, here’s mine: I grew up with a mix of Military Protestant and Missionary Baptist teachings, as well as placing a lot of belief in the scientific method. Well that’s a really bad combination for someone to remain a Christian, but I managed to stay Christian until someone from the church down the street told me in all seriousness that trying to preserve the environment was going to piss God off. Seriously, (this was in the late ’80s) the world was going to end Dec 31 1999 and if everything wasn’t totally used up by them God was going to be pissed for us “wasting” what He had placed in the earth for us to use. Of course we are now more than 14 years past that date and Jesus is still not here, the Rapture still hasn’t taken place. A year after that conversation I was a newbie Pagan and I remain Pagan (UU) today, though now I’m considered a Sage rather than a “newbie”, but don’t tell my students I still consider myself learning every day.
tl;dr: I used to be Christian until one of them told me something utterly stoopid, now I’m Not.
The Rapture seems really unfair to people who were just born immediately prior to it, IMHO
The Rapture is kind of a weird-weird idea that doesn’t exist in 90% of Christianity. One of the odd things about America’s fundamentalism streak is it tries to pretend the VAST VAST differences in Christian denominations and beliefs don’t exist. If you interrogated many, they’d fail to realize there was more than Baptist, Mormon, and Catholics out there and many would try and deny two out of those 3.
What if the Rapture did happen, and nobody realized it because some isolated sect of monks somewhere were the only ones to make the cut?
Having read the Bible a few times, I’m really trying to wrap my head around the idea of people being sucked up into Heaven Elijah style.
Just curious, but have you talked to that person since the non-rapture? I would be curious how the non-event was rationalized (handwaved) away. And did it affect that person’s faith in their church?
Oh my GOD I HEART THESE TWO SO MUCH. Not in a shippy way, but in a BFFS WAY GAH
Permit me my moment of squee, because I have little to add to the theological discussion, as an atheist who was raised almost without religion.
Point taken…never read internet comments.
Mr. Willis I love your comics, but your fans are sometimes not very nice people.
Thanks for violating Wheaton’s law folks.
I think the discussions here are usually pretty reasonable myself. I mean there’s a few bad eggs but what can you do? Its the internet.
Most of the talking regarding Christianity is usually by either current or former christians as well which helps the discussion a lot IMO.
I actually . . . Don’t think there’s a lot of meanness here? At all? What are you upset at?
Don’t believe in the you who believes in me. Not the me who believes in you. Believe in the you who believes in yourself.
Whenever these discussions come up, all that comes to mind is “Tak does not require that we think of Him, only that we Think.”
I don’t know man, there are plenty of terrible messages that come from the Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist goofball sects, but “the good things we do are God working through us” isn’t especially horrible. There’s another old adage, “God helps those who help themselves”, which is kind of about how we are free to live our own lives, God doesn’t micromanage us, and sometimes we have to count on ourselves rather than holding out for random heaven-send goodness, but God is still present in the world in subtle ways whether or not your level of faith dictates that you dwell on it a lot.
Any divine intercession that is indistinguishable from an individual’s hard work strikes me as dubious.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uav7JEF6x4w
This might be interesting and relevant
No joyce, pride is not a sin, despite widely held beliefs, the seven deadly sins are not found in the the bible.
“Pride in yourself is sinful.”
Quick, where’s some hard alcohol? I hear it can prevent things from entering your long-term memory.
See, THIS is why I worship Sithrak. Every thing I accomplish was done through my own hard work, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of a cruel insane god seeking to torment me.