[Closed] Religion...

Precisely, so why is the tone of this thread trending to anti christian, and the denigration of their beliefs, rather than anti (bigoted christians)?

...because a christian apologist missed the point of the cartoon.

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil ... because there was no such thing as a bad thing.

I'm not sure as I follow the logic there. If you're ignorant of something, it can't exist?

Anyway. I'm not sure that "bad" and "evil" are directly analogous in this context. The crux of it (in Catholicism at least) is that mankind disobeyed god by eating fruit they'd been expressly forbidden to eat, and we've had our cards marked ever since. This is what the character describes as "bad" - it's 'bad' in the unfortunate / undesirable sense rather than 'bad' meaning wicked.

Putting that another way; the character believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

they were in no position to know that what they did was wrong. In he same way a 1 year old flipping food out of their palte wouldn't know that was bad.

Sure. But their mother subsequently describing the state of the carpet to the father would.

Anyway. I'm not sure that "bad" and "evil" are directly analogous in this context. The crux of it (in Catholicism at least) is that mankind disobeyed god by eating fruit they'd been expressly forbidden to eat, and we've had our cards marked ever since

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

well, there are a few jesus / beardy god references in there

Huh? Is a beardy god an exclusively Christian tenet?

I always thought the image of god looking like santa claus in his underwear was a wholly western creation. If god were to pop up tomorrow I'd expect him to look more like Samuel L Jackson.

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

But that's not what the strip says, or even implies. I just said this.

the character [in the cartoon] believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

If god were to pop up tomorrow I'd expect him to look more like Samuel L Jackson.

[img] [/img]

the character [in the cartoon] believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

Doesn't matter. What they did was bad, doesn't mean that their intentions were bad or that they are culpable.

Important distinction, imo, in general (not just re Adam and Eve 🙂 )

What they did was bad,

why do you say that?

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

Excellent. So the character has it wrong. Hence he "sucks at religion".

We're all agreed and can close the thread.

You can leave the thread any time you like, you don't have to wait for it to be closed, you can close it yourself by not opening anymore, see ya, it's been nice chatting

The joke is a little crap if it refers to atypical characters, it only really works if the beliefs are more widely held

I rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant. It's cutting but, I think, probably true.
To my mind the point of the cartoon is that many of us have silly personal ideas, lucky charms, weird beliefs etc that we keep to ourselves and that don't really do much harm - and might well provide a funny pub story. Organised religion in it's hideous bigoted, offensive and painfully backward way is, I think (not 'believe'), one of the biggest hindrances to progression in society. As Dawkins has put it many times, religious indoctrination of children should be seen as child abuse.

[img] [/img]

The joke is a little crap if it refers to atypical characters, it only really works if the beliefs are more widely held

That rather depends on how/if you understand the joke. 😆

To dissect yet another frog, it is about the hypocrisy of mocking one set of beliefs as crazy, whilst believing some equally crazy sounding stuff yourself.

It doesn't hang on some odd philosophical theology debate about whether it is right to call something "bad" because it turned out to be "bad" even though it wasn't "bad" at the time.

Nor does it hang on every religionist believing precisely the same crazy stuff as that character. Those are just [i]his[/i] crazy beliefs. I'm sure you have your own. (As do I).

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

It's the Fall of Man, the reason we were cast out of paradise, the source of the Catholic concept of original sin. And most Christians think it's "just one of those things?"

[img] [/img]

Aside from the fact that many 'Christians' seem treat their entire religion as just one of those things, it might be true that the story isn't of major import in most Christian churches, I'm not wholly sure. But it's a pretty critical one in Catholicism.

why do you say that?

Because it introduced badness, didn't it? Original sin? Isn't sin bad?

I'm not exactly well versed in this stuff mind, so please correct me - but it's interesting nevertheless.

I rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant.

I do not think so. Everyone has their own relationship with religion. Some are following like sheep, but then sheep will follow anything. Other religious people are highly intelligent and critical, and understand religion perhaps in a deeper way than you do and your intelligent mate do.

It's the Fall of Man, the reason we were cast out of paradise, the source of the Catholic concept of original sin. And most Christians think it's "just one of those things?"

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

Everyone has their own relationship with religion. Some are following like sheep, but then sheep will follow anything

Let's not bring (another) Apple into this.

rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant.

surely you just mean relatively intelligent

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

Crucifixion not good enough for you ay? String 'em up I say.

To dissect yet another frog, it is about the hypocrisy of mocking one set of beliefs as crazy, whilst believing some equally crazy sounding stuff yourself.

It doesn't hang on some odd philosophical theology debate about whether it is right to call something "bad" because it turned out to be "bad" even though it wasn't "bad" at the time.

But it parodies christian beliefs in every other statement in that phrase, so it is a little incongruous to have one 'made up' one isn't it?

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

We nailed the son of god to a couple of planks for the crime of being nice to people, and two thousand years on his devoted followers aren't sure whether that was a good or a bad thing?

>.<

Sorry, I'm clearly missing something fundamental here.

He said neither good nor bad. That's not the same as not knowing if it's good or bad.

"Crucifixion not good enough for you ay? String 'em up I say. "

lol

We nailed the son of god to a couple of planks for the crime of being nice to people, and two thousand years on his devoted followers aren't sure whether that was a good or a bad thing?

Presumably if there is a "second coming" Christians everywhere will be lining up at B&Q for some 2x4 and a nail gun. 😀

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.

Cougar, Graham, I'm dissapointed. You're arguing about interpretation.

But it parodies christian beliefs in every other statement in that phrase, so it is a little incongruous to have one 'made up' one isn't it?

The comic states A+B+C=D, and you're arguing that A doesn't look like A, it actually looks more like F. It's the logic that matters, not the content.

You're arguing about interpretation.

I'm not, I'm genuinely perplexed. (-:

Nice pun 😉

"Presumably if there is a "second coming" Christians everywhere will be lining up at B&Q for some 2x4 and a nail gun.

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus. "

See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude. Change the sudject matter to race/gender, what ever you like, and a statemnet similiar to that wouldn't go down at all well.

Oh and Graham it wasn't christains that nailed him up, think about it.

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.

Why? It's not the fact that he died that was important, it was his actions. Coming back doesn't change that, does it?

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.
>See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude.

Clearly intelligence is all relative - but I think the point he made is largely true. And the fact that people can hold two completely opposing views at the same time is well documented. There are many so called 'religious scientists' - which for most religions would be complete nonsense. I don't want to go around telling grannies to stop going to church, baking cakes and doing a bit of singing but they (well some of them) are part of a very dangerous cult they infects the globe with actions that are far from trivial.

See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude.

Apologies if you found it so. It was only intended as a humorous mental image.

Oh and Graham it wasn't christains that nailed him up, think about it.

No, but I was making light of the premise that they are apparently unsure if the crucifixion of Christ was a bad thing, by humorously suggesting that those Christians who think it was a "good" thing would be keen to repeat it.

.

[i](oooh two more frog's livers).[/i]

Oh and the analogy with race and gender really annoys me. I realise this puts me rather at odds with current law but I total reject the equivalence of race, age and gender with religious *beliefs* - the latter being the one an individual has control of. It's demeaning to the others.

Plus, as has been said many times, Christians can interpret their religion in their own way. Believing in biblical inerrancy is not necessarily a requirement.

So you can believe in evolution, big bang etc and still believe in God, because there's a clear role for Him despite all the science.

Anyone who thinks science and religion are always incompatible hasn't really thought about it very well.

I agree, but the stranger thing for me is that he capitalised 'Him'. There's blatant disrespect hiding an underlying respect for Our Lord, it seems

Nah. Just a respect for grammar and the sensibilities of others 😀

(Plus it avoids saying Jesuses'es's 🙂 )

Yeysooeses!

[img] [/img]

(via [url=

Oatmeal's facebook page[/url])

Religion is cosmic for tax avoidance.

"Anyone who thinks science and religion are always incompatible hasn't really thought about it very well."
Really? Science is objective, religion is not. The two are completely different. Of course to suggest science will explain everything is very probably a bit short sighted but that doesn't mean it's rational to appoint the things we do't understand to some guy with a beard floating on a cloud. That's just childish.

So you can believe in evolution, big bang etc and still believe in God, because there's a clear role for Him despite all the science.

You can but you'd be wrong.

Actually the statement 'clear role for him' is telling. It's like the author needs the role to exist, which is the whole thing about religion - it's invented by humans to make us feel better. Fair enough, do what you need to get through the day, but please, don't turn this into a genocidal, homophobic, costume-wearing pan-global scary bag of shit.

I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive.

I think it's unnecessary, but it's not mutually exclusive. It's possible to retro-fit religious ideas around known(*) science, so long as your chosen branch of religion is flexible enough to allow that.

(* - 'known' to the best of our knowledge thus far, anyway)

Both scientific and religious beliefs should be 'subject to change'