|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron oldhat. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0589] The Girl On Fire](/comics/2014-06-12-0589-the-girl-on-fire.png "[0589] The Girl On Fire")
Click on the following thumbnail to view Powree’s drawing of Katniss Everdeen in full resolution:
- Harriet: Can you help me to–
- Harriet: — Where did you get that painting?
- Landon: Larisa painted it for my birthday. Do you like it?
- Harriet: If I ever see you again with that witch, you’ll be in for a sound beating!
|
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
Harriet remenbers me of Calvino or the Spanish Inquisition. Both were extremely controlling, self-righteous and preached or enforced their views upon others. Even if it were done for “a good reason”, as they had claimed. Beliefs often masks some other subtle motivations, while for somebody are genuine compasion and spirituality, others such as in Harriet’s case, have the fear of “letting go” of the family’s control by, per example, Landon learning outsider views on the world. I hope Landon can cope with what’s to come. He will have to make a decision about what’s right or wrong for himself.
What bothers me the most about Harriet is I have met people like her.
Their faith is not a balm or comfort. But a weapon they wield.
Do not blame the faith she claims. It is only a frame work for the warped mind she uses.
@ Louncher:
And by her word, she’ll beat the crap out of him if he doesn’t choose what she wants him to. And I believe her.
@ Avian Mosquito:
So wait… let me get this straight…. You’re taking ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of ONE SPECIFIC negatively depicted character… and you’re somehow leaping to the VASTLY over reactionary and unfounded conclusion that somehow Harriet represents ALL Christians? I am sorry but no. You’re offense and outrrage is completely unjustified.
Could it be that you’re merely offended because of the implications that this ONE CHARACTER draws hits a little too close to home as how YOU PERSONALLY seem to also think? I think that is the case, and here’s why. Like Harriet, you see no broader spectrum of interpetation. You see ONE THING and you jump to a ridiculous conclusion and there is no in-between for you. There is no broader spectrum. No grey areas. It’s all or nothing and black or white with you just as it seems to be for her.
You possess no concept that maybe, just maybe Harriet does not represent ALL Christians, but merely JUST ONE character? Of course, becuase you clearly missed the point that Landon’s father also seems to be a Christian in this very same story, and he has a viewpoint very different from Harriet. But you don’t see that side, do you? No, you only see Harriet. Because to you, you think this one character is meant to represent ALL Christians, when at NO POINT does Oliver even come close to asserting this assumption that you are making without any evidence, proof or common sense.
I think that you are offended because Harriet’s tunnel visioned extremism seems to mirror your own. Not because you are a Christian and not because she is a Christian, but just because you are just the type of judgmental, over-reactionary, and self-deluded person to draw a conclusion that you made up in order to justify your own manufactured outrage and simple-minded faux-offended excuses to project your own uncomfortableness with a character that is a lot more like you than you seem able to admit., on the writer for things that the writer never actually said.
The fact isn’t that you’re offended about her seemingly being some sort of Christian stereotype, because she is very obviously NOT intended to accurately reflect a stereotype of ALL religious people (her own religious husband is NOTHING like her), it’s because of ignorant assumptions projected through your own denial that you ARE a Harriet, and THAT makes you uncomfortable.
It has nothing to do with her religion and I think you know that. It has to do what kind of person she is. The same kind of person you are. A bitter, judgmental, paranoid, deluded person looking to downplay and redirect your own personality flaws by claiming to play the part of the poor, persecuted victim, twisting someone else’s comic around to make yourself feel better for being just as ignorant, just as nasty and just as shallow as she is.
@ inverse:
OOPS.
Hey, somehow, my comment did not reply to the correct person. I was NOT replying to “Avian Mosquito” but the comment posted as a reply to them when I didn’t intend that. It was someone else I was replying to in this conversation, but…. for some reason, it didn’t reply correctly. I will have to go back in and find the right person….
@ inverse:
Mawileceyvis, page 1? Or Georg Prime, page 3?
ok… so… now that I scrolled through… I don’t know what happened, but after going back through the comments, trying to locate who I was actually trying to reply to… (seriously, I do not know what happened, as I want to stress again, I don’t know how I ended up replying to Avian Mosquito..)
…I think I was attempting to reply to Georg Prime, from the best I can tell.
That person seems to be the one most trying to declare the comic as “bad”, or whining about how he “doesn’t want to read it anymore” or whatever, over some stupid assumption and defining Harriet as a “Hate Sink” (which is clearly not true, because Harriet is a character study of only ONE character, NOT intended to speak for all Christians, and at no point did I get ANY impression that the character of Harriet speaks for anyone else but herself…) and seemed to be most attacking or whining about the comic. Which is what I take issue with.
It could have been someone else, but Georg Prime’s comments seem to be the one I remember commenting to. I just want to state again, and apologize to Avian Mosquito, as I either clicked the wrong thing, or it redirected me wrong.. (the fault could have been mine though).
Anyway, the fact of what I’m saying remains. You cannot blame Oliver for making a character study out of ONE character in this situation, especially when her religious husband and Landon’s father seems to be well more than the level-headed Christian counter-point, and no, you cannot just brush him off or disqualify him.
And I still assert just as strongly that if anyone out there gets “offended” over Harriet’s mere depiction, or if you have to jump to the conclusion of this comic trying to belittle your precious religion for making a single character who just happens to be Christian, but her overriding mentality of being a bad person says far more about HER than it says for her religion, then I am almost certain, that kind of butt-hurtedness, conclusion jumping, piss-poor assumptions and crying and blubbering about this comic making some kind of statement about all Christian’s based on the words of what ONE LONE CHARACTER SAYS, it is because it touches a nerve in anyone who sees things just as black and white as as simplemindedly as she does.
Only YOU can ruin this comic for yourself. And it’s apparently very easy to do so when you’re so very paranoid and so devoted to the idea of reading much farther into things that just aren’t there, than you need to.
I get so sick of everyone latching onto ONE negatively depicted character in a work of fictional all the time, and some paranoid, crybaby out there, inevitably gets such a sour nerve touched in their own psyche because they hate how much such a like-minded character reminds them of themselves, they’ll need to hold themselves or their entire religion up as some kind of poor persecuted pariah, just because they share a trait.
Do I get all offended, weepy, worked up, self-righteous, and butt-hurt when a serial killer in a comic book has the same hair color or t-shirt, drinks the same brand of soda, or shares the same political affiliation as me? Do I instantly think that comic writer is trying to say that I, or everyone like me who belongs to the same group are all serial killers too, just because one of those things match?
No. Of course not. That would be stupid.
Just like it’s equally stupid to suddenly declare that this comic is so terrible, that you hate now and totally aren’t going to read anymore, just because a negatively depicted character is a Christian and, coincidentally, so are you, or so is someone else you know.
If you’re really secure in your Christianity, than don’t just cry about (or even read into, especially when you have no basis to do so) how the comic is settling some bad example for all Christians. Do a better job yourself in the real world, or at least grow up enough to start thinking of all of the people you know, or all of the things YOU CAN DO, to set that good example, yourself, and admit that, there are also real Christians out there that CAN make their religion look bad through their actions, and that not every group you belong to is always perfect.
I view Harriet as an individual who is just as much influenced by her own nature, as well as forces outside of her religion just as much as she may use it as the excuse to act the way she does. And you should, too. All of you should. No matter what you believe on either side of this “debate” going, you should ALL look at the comic like this instead of the way that most of you seem to be doing. But just because you’re christian, or you possess a certain sexual preference of some kind, or you belong to some kind of religon, or even if you’re just a
There are much more productive things to do with your time than to get offended over comics that MIGHT or even MIGHT NOT be saying something that you don’t particularly like to hear. Even when it’s obviously meant to reflect, not an entire truth, but one example of a percentage of the truth, whether it be 80% true, or 10% true, or anything else.
That’s what I meant to say from the beginning, even if I did sort of reply to the wrong person.
But let me just say this.. if you read this and you THINK that, based on what I said in general, you think I, or a comic, or a tv show, or a work of fiction IS talking about you, chances probably are that it is. And that instead of getting indignant and self-righteous about it, you might way to learn from something someone says about you, or your category of belief, creed, social group, class, predilection, preference, or status, whether optional or not.
That needs to be clear. Above all else.
@ inverse:
corrections in my post::
(or even if you’re just a) “or even if you’re just a subscriber to the same line of thinking.
(might way to learn) “might want to learn”
Kinda wish I could edit comments. Anyway, that was probably long winded. I’m done though.
@ inverse:
It’s okay, shit happens. I figured you had the wrong guy when I started reading it.
@ inverse:
You have argomented your observation, and I think you are entitled to a reply. I wasn’t declaring the whole comic bad, but I had something to say about the last strip, particulary because knowing when to stop is important, and IMHO this went further then needed.
The comedy in the arc seemed a bit over the top but not unenjoyable, the contrast between spouses was the punching line (by the way the religiosity of the father was never talke about, the mother is the only character to be explicitly said is religious). But in this strip Harriet has become much less a full fleshed character and much more a strawman (or straw-woman in this case), and this brings with it another part of my critic.
I’m not offendend by a single character, is the trend that cause me concern: imagine, as an exemple, that you ar part of a family, an ethnia or an organization, and a media starts representing each and every one member of it in a negative way. Would you like it? I don’t think so. This is why I’ve reported the previouses appearances of religoius thematics in the comic, all of them been negative, but brief. And now the only fleshed up charater who is explicitly called religious appear ad a crazy, intolerant bigot. Well, allow me not to feel offended, but at least to hear an alarm bell.
As for “reading much farther into things that just aren’t there, than you need to”, no literary work (and comics are, too) can be taken at face value, each and every one bringing with it a part of the inner world of the author.
This is it, I wasn’t whining, I was reporting something about the comic going in a direction I like less, and about a trend that unsettles me.
I hope I am entitled to an observation.
AntiDragon4185 wrote:
What AntiDragon said. Except that I was part of Christian community for most of my life. I have greatness in small men and smallness in important people. The church does not make us better or worse, faith only gives us strength of conviction (which is a powerful thing) and a group of peers.
… I am tired and rambling, and disheartened by hatred I’ve witnessed here and in life. Goodnight.
I am a beginner in coding, but I am saying this to Landon’s mom
[std::cout << "You just suck! \n";\]
@ Gryph:
So blind faith is now “strength of conviction”? That’s got to be the funniest euphemism I’ve ever heard. There is no upside to religion. It’s a predatory practice, invented by rulers to keep their people easy to control. That’s all it ever is, was and will be.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Getting to be full of yourself are we? Getting a little judgemental? As for equating cyanide with health and longevity, I suggest you take a good look at modern medicine.
@ Avian Mosquito:
You will then have to explain atheists and their behavior. They have done worse in a shorter amount of time than all the religions combined in the last 4000 years and they did it in 100.
@ Van:
1. And you are a willfully ignorant toady to a series of rulers that have been dead for thousands of years.
2. Cyanide *poisoning*, moron. Using it for urine keytone testing isn’t poisoning people with it in the same way reading a story book isn’t practicing religion.
3. You failed to substantiate your claim, liar.
@ Van:
And go ahead. Tell me what’s worse than:
1. The systemic oppression of women throughout history, for which religion was the main excuse.
2. Systemic murders for things as silly as working on sunday, that religion enforced.
3. The rampant homophobia, and again the murders of countless homosexuals.
4. Slave and sex trafficking throughout history.
5. Millenia of child abuse, which all abrahamic religions call for.
6. In the case of Islam, the protection of child molesters under Sharia, as Muhammed himself was a child molester. (He “married” a 9-year old.)
7. The Christian dark ages, a massive scientific setback followed by centuries of scientific and cultural reppression following the rise of Christianity in europe.
8. The crusades, the longest and bloodiest series of wars in human history.
9. Organizations like the Spanish Inquisition, which used Catholocism to justify their reigns of terror.
10. Multiple genocides throughout the Americas, collectively the worst slaughter in human history, as the settlers used religion as an excuse to horrifically slaughter the native populations right down to their newborn infants, in biblically horrible ways. More still died feom disease, but the murders alone dwarf the haulocaust.
11. Speaking of which, the haulocaust. Roman Catholocism was the practised religion of Adolf Hitler, the state religion of Nazi Germany, the excuse for the original segregation and later the justification for the “Final Solution”.
12. The entire fucking Isreali-Palistinean conflict, long savage tging that’s been.
13. Sharia law, Islamic terrorism and the Shia-Sunni conflict.
14. And, of course, the modern US republican party. (Joking on this one. Mostly.)
Avian Mosquito wrote:
Avian Mosquito wrote:
When my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer (which we caught early and stopped, thank god) The Christian friends I talked about earlier dropped what they were doing and ran to help her through her ordeal. They were deeply supportive of her, especially during the time when we had no idea how serious the case was.
Whatever may be in the bible itself, and whatever may have happened and be happening because of religion, religion itself still gives spiritual comfort and an emotional support to millions of people around the world. Try telling 1.5 billion people that they aren’t “really” content with their spirituality before you call it worthless.
@ Antidragon4185:
I can’t tell 1.5 billion people anything, that is a ridiculous request. As for spirituality, that’s not exclusive to religion. It’s found much stronger and more meaningfully in art, and secular art is no exception.
And finally, your friends’ supposed “Christianity”, which is not actually Christianity, has nothing to do with their support. I have had, for example, an almost even split in “Christian” and atheist friends. I suffered a number of heavy losses in my lifetime, and found there to be basically no difference between the two when it came to support. If anything, my atheist friends were more supportive, but that’s probably just because I was closer to them.
@ Mr Ru:
OK, I can understand that she would hate Ava’s Demon because of swearing, but BURNING BOOKS is something I simply cannot abide!
@ Avian Mosquito:
Perhaps. But spirituality isn’t exclusive to secular art either. If someone happens to experience stronger and more meaningful spirituality in religion than they ever felt with art, are they flawed?
@ Avian Mosquito:
Also, while my atheist friends did stop by to lend their support, my religious friends went above and beyond the call of duty, staying with her the entire day and helping us maintain our lives while also keeping an eye on her.
I also wouldn’t discount the profound affect religion had on my mother during this time. It gave her comfort while she was convinced (in her mind) that she was going to die. I don’t think anything else could have brought her better peace than that.
@ Antidragon4185:
I never said it was, and I wouldn’t go so far as to call that a flaw. I just think they have bad taste. I think the same about Justin Beiber fans. But don’t forget that, historically, Christianity has repressed art almost as much as it has the sciences.
The personality traits of your individual friends is shoddy evidence, and the comfort your mother recieved from Christianity is the kind that brought the phrase “ignorance is bliss” into the vernacular. Death is final, and there’s no life after it. You’re gone. You do not exist any longer. Nobody should be comfortable with that, for themselves or anyone else, and if people understood that they wouldn’t be as willing to give up their lives, or the lives of others.
@ Avian Mosquito: Okay, so Avian implied that non-Christians are meaner. You countered by suggesting that the writer is just another willfully ignorant, delusional, vicious, self-righteous, uneducated Christian simpleton who clings to demented fairy tails and considers non-Christians dirty heathens.
That’s losing the moral high ground.
I’m not trying to attack, but you’re behaving like the other side of the coin there.
@ Peoswriter:
Come back when you can get your story straight. And maybe learn to type.
@ Peoswriter:
Okay. That was ruder than intended. But seriously, try that again. And proofread this time.
That woman needs help. A lot of it.
And probably sedatives, or anti-psychotics.
Or both.
@ Avian Mosquito:
It took me a few read-throughs to notice the one error in Peoswriter’s post (“fairy tails”). Big talk from someone who keeps going on about “Catholocism.”
What is a “true Christian”? Yes, there’s a lot of nastiness in the Bible, sanctioned by God, and little of it is condemned by Jesus or Paul. But certainly Christians aren’t bound by the Law of Moses – the Bible’s clear on that, at least. Is it mad to worship the being and venerate the men that co-wrote such an indefensible code? Sure. But where do you get off saying a “true Christian” would act like a Bronze Age warlord, just because their god seemed to be cool with Bronze Age warlords? Did Jesus (Jesus as depicted) act like that? Did Peter, Paul, or John (again, as depicted)? Sure, they all would have seemed like sexist, antiquarian pricks in modern society, not to mention, but the for fact we’re all so used to it, a creepy, insular, apocalyptic cult, but not like the “true Christians” you describe. What you’re saying is the rough equivalent to saying the Cato Institute should either change their name or invade Tunisia.
There were so many people (myself included) searching for a valid reason for her earlier actions.
Now, I may start looking for (and purposely failing) a reason to let her live.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Mmmmmmm you look tasty. Ribbit Ribbit
You hate Christians ? Then go tell someone who cares Ribbit Ribbit.
@ Raen:
Oh really? You didn’t notice, say, the ENORMOUS error in the first line of his post?
And for the record, any law put in the book and not later renounced is still a law. The hatred of homosexuals was renounced, sure, but say, murdering people with rocks for picking up sticks on sunday was not. Neither was the child abuse, and in fact the slavery was actual reinforced in the new testament three times. So by that standard, murdering people for working on sunday is a moral responsibility and beating the living fuck out of your kids is great parenting. Even just following Jesus’s rules you have to be all for slavery, and put everyone who depends on you below a mythical magic man who never existed 2,000 years ago.
This post is long, didn’t mean to become an essay. But it did.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Hm. I’m no fan of organized religion of any stripe, I’m in fact an atheist. If there is a God, we are beneath its notice. But I’m afraid I cannot support your rants. What you say is at best out of context, if not factually inaccurate. Your hate filled prejudice is hardly better than what the worst of so called ‘Christians’ utter.
First of all, it is actually an accepted fact by historians that study that period that Jesus Christ did in fact exist (I looked it up several weeks back, although I’d heard such before). That doesn’t mean he was the son of God, just that there was a man who said and did some of the things attributed to him. My view is that he was a man, maybe a Rabbi who was trying to go a different route and upset the status quo. His story got ’embellished’ in the retelling (while an extreme example, it is hardly uncommon) and the result is the gospels.
Second, there is considerable evidence that the new testament did exist prior to the Council of Nicaea. Again, that doesn’t mean they are historical facts or accurate records of anything, but to say they were made up at the Council of Nicaea is blatantly incorrect. Did the bible get modified by the council for political reasons, and subsequently in other versions? Possibly, even probably. Heck its widely accepted that at the very least Revelations was political from the get go, few serious theologians or historians consider it anything more. Which brings me to the third point.
Third, these books were all written by humans. Men usually. They are products of their times, most reasonable theologians acknowledge this, and take that in account when interpreting the books. It is the unreasonable that try to be more literal, and foolish.
It can be argued they are ‘inspired’ by God, but I’m not inclined to go that far. I will agree the books are superstitious nonsense intended – like all religions – to try to explain a scary world that was beyond the grasp of primitive man. And yes, there were those that would use it to control others. That is my primary beef with organized religion, that people with an agenda will use it to control others to further their own ends, and others will follow because; “Hey, its what God wants!”
Hardly uncommon. 9/11 had the same problem. A national tragedy, cynically used to further the political agendas of many people. Any time anyone spoke out, they would trot out “9/11!!!!” and people would fall in line “Oh, well, we can’t let the terrorists win.” And both sides of the political spectrum did it.
I have no doubt you have read the bible, and you are not wrong in your quotes. The Old Testament in particular is unpleasant, and Leviticus – which homophobes use to justify their hatred – is a silly book to quote because of all of the silly rules it has. An obvious creation of the Jewish priesthood at some point for their profit.
Idiots find the passages that support their agendas and use them to further them, while completely ignoring anything that doesn’t support what they want. They quote those sections to get others to believe what they want, while ignoring other parts that would give a different view. And they take things out of context. Or outright make things up (my goodness, but there is a lot of that).
The idiots cherry pick the bible for their benefit, and so do you.
Don’t be like them.
As another suggested, your anger would be more accurate against Orthodox Judaism, as they only have the old testament in the Torah, and are expected to live by many if not all of those silly rules. And even then I think it an extreme reaction.
I suspect the source of your anger is rooted in a trauma, that you have seen or experienced a serious crime committed in the name of God, there is no shortage of those. And for that I am deeply sorry. And again, it is why I have no love of organized religion.
But you should not paint so many people with so broad a brush. For every Westboro Church member there are a hundred people that have faith in a pretty inoffensive manner.
Yes, parts of the bible are offensive from a modern view. It was a brutal time. Those with sense understand that those parts are products of those times, and not applicable to the modern world. Heck, much of the stuff is based on even older stories and beliefs.
Those without sense, well, they are idiots. If someone quotes one of those stupid parts and claims it is the will of God, feel free to find the parts that would similarly require the person uttering the stupidity be put to death. Won’t be hard, as you say, there are plenty of stupid rules in the book. That will put them on the spot. How do you use the book to declare something evil when the same book declares you evil?
People don’t do that enough in my mind (use their own logic against them).
Not to mention that there is “Judge not lest you be judged”.
Frankly I think that was what Jesus the man, and the writers of the New Testament were trying to do, to mellow the entire religion. To get away from – what a friend of mine calls – the drunken abusive father God of the Old Testament. The probably believed they were inspired by God. Whatever, they were trying to do the right thing.
In the end your anger should be directed at those who deserve it. Humans. And not all humans, but specific humans. The ones who do the horrible things, if they try to use religion to justify it, call their b.s. I work with a Muslim who states flat out that most of the horrible stuff Muslims try to justify saying it is the will of Allah, is a load of bull. Its not in the Koran at all, doesn’t exist, its made up. I saw a documentary about women in Islam, they had people who could read the old Arabic that the Koran is written in, and they confirmed that most of the stuff that is claimed is nonsense, there are no such limitations on women. There is even a question if the standard hijab was meant as standard, or merely for Mohammad’s wives because people were always coming in and out of his house (he taught there, and had a mosque).
So, all the b.s. that is used to justify women can’t do this, or that, etc?
Humans made it up. Wasn’t even Mohammad who made it up, it was people later.
They lied.
That isn’t the fault of Islam, other than – as I stated – the basic problem with organized religion being used to have gullible people do what you tell them as long as you claim its the will of God. Its the fault of the people who made it up. And the fault of the people who *wanted* to believe it.
Christianity is the same. The Rapture, the anti-christ (Revelations refers to The Beast, and theologians generally dismiss the book as completely politically motivated by the persecution of Christians by Nero, not a ‘prophecy’), the names of angels and demons, and all sorts of other stuff. None of its in there. its all made up.
People lied.
So, you want to be angry at people, save your anger for those that deserve it. To hate everyone and everything involving the bible and Christianity sounds terribly exhausting, And very unfair to a lot of people who don’t deserve it. Guilt by association is not exactly just.
There are people out there that are evil and deserve your anger, aim it at them for their actions. If they use religion to justify their actions, feel free to rip them apart for it. The silly woman in this comic isn’t necessarily evil, she’s – so far – mostly just stupid.
She’s also not real.
Hatred should be saved for those that deserve it, and who actually exist.
BTW – I’m unlikely to follow up on this conversation. Just sayin’.
Yeaaa religion and everything aside, she’s really mean haha.
..bloody hell..I have only this to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGwZSU8wvlA
Eric wrote:
Well, then this is going to be just as long.
Oh then, by all means, explain where I am wrong. This should be amusing.
No, it’s really not. There’s no record of his presence, no remains, nothing, and nobody wrote a damned thing about him until thirty years after he died. That’s the kind of period that then was juuuuust long enough that people couldn’t conclusively say he didn’t exist with the record keeping of the time.
There were tales of Jesus before then, but no book. It was never consolidated into a book until the Council of Nicaea came into being. The council decided what went in, what didn’t, and what to throw in for their own purposes. And since we know *anything* in there could have been added by them and have no way of knowing what was or wasn’t, none of it can be conclusively said not to be their work.
Hm. Funny, this doesn’t seem to conflict with *ANYTHING* I said. At all. Of course, calling it metaphorical is admitting it’s not true, but they’re not smart enough to realise that. And of course, they’re also not smart enough to understand it’s being used to manipulate them, and that’s all it has EVER been used for.
Yeah, I remember. I was quite aware of exactly what they were doing. And look where following that line of horseshit got us. Neck deep in two wars, one of which we’re still in and the other is threatening to turn the entire middle east into a bloodbath.
1. I made sure to include the new testament as well, in case you forgot.
2. I already acknowledged that using Leveticus for examples is going after the low hanging fruit when I first brought it up.
3. The entire Torah was made up by the Jewish priesthood at some point for their profit.
I’m not cherry picking. The things I brought out are indefensible regardless of context, and in context are as bad or worse, and I don’t really have a choice when it comes to demonstrating how evil the bible is other than to use individual examples. I don’t have time or space, and neither do you, to annotate the entire bible, and if I did nobody would read it unless they were already on my side. (Although of course somebody does and already has done that.)
And you think my issue is only with the old testament and not with the new testament? There’s plenty of despicable shit in the new testament too.
And no, my reaction is not extreme. You use that word like you don’t know what it means. Extreme would be mass bible burnings in the town square. Extreme would be outlawing Abrahamic religion. Extreme would be throwing Christians into an arena with starving lions.
Vocally expressing my distaste for Christianity is not extreme, especially when it started as a counter to a chauvinist prick on page 1 promoting the “heathens are evil” stereotype, and that IS how this started.
THAT’s what you think this is? Because that’s not what this is. Do I have experiences with the violence and bigotry of Christians? Yes. My mother was a surly, abusive, racist, sexist drunk who really thinks all the things in the horrible old testament are just fantastic and doesn’t even notice that *Leveticus* is retarded. But I understand my mother, evil fascist cunt that she is, is seriously mentally ill and her priest’s hate speech is just fuelling a pre-existing illness.
For most of my life, I’ve dealt with more normal “Christians”. They aren’t any more evil, or cruel, or nasty. They’re just fucking STUPID. Even in my current area, which is more conservative (FUCK I want to move) and where people harass my daughter over her sexuality, I know the problem is the Church.
I call bullshit. Have you even BEEN to the south? It’s a good 80% asshole density down there, and every one of them uses the bible as an excuse for every last fucking thing they do.
1. A “brutal time” is no excuse for rape, slavery or murder, and especially not the murder of children as the bible absolutely loves to lavish in.
2. I do that second part already, my standard comeback is (and I know it’s cheap) Leveticus 19:19. I just haven’t had a chance to do that here.
After a thousand pages of passing undue judgement, sure, that’s in there. Then they go right back to encouraging undue judgement.
Except they didn’t exist. There is no record of them existing at all outside the bible, and nobody said a thing about them until thirty years after they were all dead.
Yeah, not really applicable here.
Not going to comment on Islam. I never finished the Koran, I made it to the point where Muhammed MARRIED A SMALL CHILD and gave up. I then set the book on fire.
And people believe it anyway, because they’re idiots. And I reserve the right to call idiots as I see them.
If it’s an association you choose, then it is perfectly just. It’s just to judge Christians harshly for being a part of a religion that stands for slavery, rape and murder just like it’s just to judge a member of the Klu Klux Klan for being a part of an organization that stands for violence, bigotry and the slaughter of non-whites. Sure, most Christians have never owned a slave, committed rape or murdered anybody, but by the same right most KKK members never burned a cross or killed a black person.
1. Christians were never the point. Christianity is the point. Christianity is evil, and as I was originally trying to get to, does not make bad people (or anyone else) any better, if anything making them worse. Go back to the first page and LOOK at how this started. Seriously, that’s important.
2. You don’t get to tell me what to do. Okay, nevermind, yes you do. But that doesn’t mean I am in any way inclined to listen to you.
3. Harriet has nothing to do with this. An asshole on page 1 does.
4. And for the record, I’m pretty sure Harriet qualifies as evil. She is intentionally causing serious harm to another person for her own selfish reasons.
@ Avian Mosquito:
Erm… the prohibition of homosexuality (and other forms of “porneia”) is one of the few things that DOES apply to Christians; the laws weren’t changed, per se, just that they’re held not to apply, as you can see from reading Acts 16 and other passages. Certainly the penalties don’t apply. The Noahide laws alone apply to Christians, according to Paul. You’re right that it’s not a very good… anything, just not as prescriptive as you hold. (Also note that even contemporary Rabbis had “interpreted” most of what you’re talking about into unrecognizability.)
As for slavery, you’re right that it’s not denounced, but that doesn’t mean that Christians ought to own slaves. There’s no bridge from “X isn’t specifically prohibited by Y’s teachings” to “someone who doesn’t practice X in a place and time where it’s found loathsome isn’t a true follower of Y.”
@ Raen:
Slavery is ENDORSED by the bible, in both the old and new testaments. I already gave the passages. A “Christian” that doesn’t agree with slavery isn’t a Christian. (But then, if they did agree with skavery they’d be a monster.)
Note: In an attempt to avoid writing for hours, I had co sensed this post. Some points may end rather abruptly, and my grammar may be incorrect or awkward in places.
First, I will establish my position:
I am an atheist, though I am by hostile to religion, as long as it does not infringe upon human rights. When it does, I become hostile only to the specific instances of rights-breaking.
I believe that Avian Mosquito is not entirely wrong, but does not understand religion as much as he thinks he does. The other option, which may be more likely, is that he is a troll. More on that possibility later.
I believe that religion was once a necessary institution, and gave law and morals to people who had none. Before governments were powerful enough to enforce laws, someone created the idea of a supreme power to motivate people to follow a set of laws. It worked, but, like any system of laws, is imperfect. I will mention this again.
Second, let’s get the tongue-in-cheek response out of the way:
Avian Mosquito wrote:
Under the authority of Godwin’s Law, you have lost the argument with that statement.
Whether or not it is true, you do notuse Hitler as an example in an argument. It is bad form, and can be incredibly insulting to certain groups. Even when you want to be insulting, it’s bad form.
Now onto the real discussion.
First, on Agustin:
His statement was not made as an insult. He inadvertently said something that could insult various groups, but judging by his tone, there was no malicious intent. More likely, he holds an optimistic (or naïve, take your pick) view of humanity and religion, and honestly thought that religion might have kept Harriet from being even more abusive. (Note: I do not agree with this sentiment.)
The proper response to this is not to accuse him of ignorance, but to point out that he made a mistake.
Now, moving on to my point of view on the bible.
As stated above, I believe that religion was created out of necessity. God was invented as a way to motivate people to obey the law.
This worked well, but the morals and ideas of what is right in civilization thousands of years ago are far from today’s, as are civilizations capabilities. For example, the bible puts forth very harsh punishments (death) for many crimes that no longer warrant them. In ancient society, though, there were not resources with which to imprison people for extended periods of time, so other methods had to be used. Other parts (such as those ordering oppression of women and condemning homosexuality) were written by people with poor moral compasses or little thought to the effects on the group. Some of those problems, though, are not entirely based in religion. All parts of the bible about slavery were written after slavery became a common practice, and were made to regulate an existing practice.
Now, I speak directly to Avian Mosquito.
You do not seem to understand that religion is much more than a tool of oppression. For every life taken in the name of religion, one has been saved. Some people might kill if they did not believe that it would send them to Hell. Others would be lost to depression without emotional help from preachers religion. It may be easy to point out the thousands killed for religion, but most of those cases are outliers. Sure, some religions lead people to preach hate, but how often do people kill for that (especially as compared to how many are killed for other reasons)?
Oppression is a worse problem, certainly, but it is not a common feature of all religions and denominations.
As for your mention of people not truly being Christian… I present you with the “No True Scotsman” Medal of Fallacious Discourse.
Just because you read the book does not mean you understand how religion works as a whole. The book is ancient, and much of it no longer applies or is accepted as wrong or irrelevant. Just because the book says “you have to do this to be Christian” does not mean that you can’t be Christian unless you do everything it says. Because religions are a school of thought, they change with time.
That particular point leads me to believe you are a troll, or very, very bad at understanding how hints work.
To most people in the part of the world I assume you live in (the english-speaking part, particularly the first world) it is clear that the various bibles and other “holy” books are not to be taken literally. You seem to believe that literal belief is inherent in religion. That is incorrect to the point that I can not comprehend how it could be misunderstood.
Basically, I can’t see how you couldn’t be at the very least exaggerating your opinion in this argument.
Pre-post Edit: Back to the “no true scotsman” bit of my post:
This is particularly noticeable in your recent post on slavery. You claim a “true” Christian must agree with slavery. That is incorrect. I out forth two categories of religious adherents: Believing and Practicing
A Believing Christian needs to believe in God and Jesus. They do not necessarily have to believe in the literal truth of all of both testaments, but they must believe in God.
A Practicing Christian has to try to live by the main laws of Christianity. They don’t have to follow the minutiae of the Bible, but they must at least try follow whichever rules their particular denomination sets forth as most important. Note than most Believing Christians are also Practicing Christians.
[end pre-post edit]
Back to third person, because I wrote this but before going into the second person:
My other guess is that Avian Mosquito had some terrible experience with religion that led him to despise it. While I can respect that he may not be able to accept it in any way, that is no excuse to publicly and rudely insult it.
Moving on to my final statements…
Avian Mosquito has a point in that religion has caused much suffering. However, you will accomplish nothing good by attacking it as viciously as you have. You will alienate most of us who oppose religion’s oppression, and you will eliminate any chance you had of swaying the religious your side by making comments that amount to direct insults to their way of life. Worse, they will set you forth as an example of why atheism is bad: “look at how violent atheists act! You must stay with God, lest you become a flamer!”* If you really want to fight religion, do it with logic, and with moderation.
*that quote was meant to be slightly humorous
I can write no more, for fear that I lose my temper, and the rest of my free time.
TL;DR
I’m an atheist, and Avian Mosquito is putting a bad name on all of us.
Religion has a good reason to exist, but has some (serious) problems.
Avian Mosquito is probably a troll, or taking things way too literally.
Religion has issues, and flaming isn’t going to fix them.
Zweisteine wrote:
Calling somebody a troll is a juvenile method of sidestepping their argument. It serves no purpose other than to allow you to dismiss them without having to counter them. Do not do it again.
Bullshit. People are quite capable of behaving in a moral manner without any mythical sky-daddy to tell them what’s good or bad. Morality does not come from religion, and no religion has ever been moral.
Godwin’s Law is a stupid rule. There are numerous occasions where Nazi Germany is a perfect example, and to block it out specifically because some people misuse it is asinine.
Right. Because that works out so well in practice.
Whether this guy was malicious or not is not the point. The point is what he said, and him honestly believing it just makes it worse.
And I believe that is a load of crap, because the moment people started grouping together they had enough power to enforce the law. The ONLY thing required for the law to function is fear. That’s how it worked in the olden days, that’s how it works today. And the fear of being, say, beaten to death with rocks, tends to keep people in line pretty well. Religion was not required for this.
What religion WAS required for was convincing people that things they know are wrong are somehow right, so they will do them without having the constant threat of violence. (After all, public relations are pretty important and threatening people all the time does a nasty number on it.) Human morality is quite flexible, so that isn’t too terribly hard, but religion works especially well for it because it claims to a higher power people can’t actually refute. (Although that means nothing, since it can’t be proven either, most people aren’t smart enough to understand that.)
Religion takes credit for a lot of things, many of them good. Whether it deserves that credit is another matter. After all, anybody can take credit for something. I can say that since my taxdollars went to it, I’m responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden. That doesn’t make it true, though, does it? And you understand why. So when religion takes credit for every good thing religious people do, try to take it with a grain of salt.
Again, this is not true. People are plenty moral without threat of hellfire, and the threat of hellfire does little to deter those that are left. It’s about as effective at stopping people from killing as the threat of jail time is effective at stopping people from using cocaine. (Read: Not very.)
Religion doesn’t get credit for this. You can get emotional support from anybody with a heart, and just about anybody would be infinitely superior to a preacher in that regard. (I wouldn’t turn to a politician for support, either. For the same reason.)
Middle East? Daily occurrence. Africa? Daily. Occurrence. How about any time in recorded history before the modern era, in all regions of Europe, Africa and the Middle East ? DAILY. OCCURRENCE.
Riiiiight. And so it’d also be fallacious to say somebody isn’t a true punk if they get all their information from Fox News? Because it’s more or less the same thing. You see, these groups have ideals. They have rules and guidelines. And you can’t really claim to be a part of a group if you don’t follow its rules or believe in its ideals.
I believe you’re missing an “a”, for starters. Second, the book is its only written law and its law in its original form. Third, you’re putting words in my mouth.
The book disagrees, and last I checked they didn’t revise it. According to the book, every one of them is going to hell for some perfectly mundane and inoffensive thing they did.
And for the record, religions change as little and as slowly as possible, and only ever due to external societal pressures. Otherwise, they’d still be back in the bronze age and you know it.
Oh goodie, another “troll” accusation. That is a cop out, sir.
Once again, have you BEEN to the American south? Because that is NOT how things are.
Exaggerating? Slightly. I think claiming to be a member of a religion while rejecting most or all of what it teaches (which is exactly what you are talking about) is as ridiculous as claiming to be a member of a political party while rejecting most or all of their policies. Granted, I’ve heard of “Republicans”, for instance, who were pro-gay, for better immigration reform, supported the EPA and were fighting to get money out of politics, but are they really a Republican since they’re against everything their party is for? The same can be said of a Christian who rejects the bible.
Except, of course, that they have some serious stones calling themselves Christians while not following any Christian teachings and barely believing in the mythology.
Here comes this crap again. I already addressed this once. I shan’t address it again.
These are Christians we’re talking about. They’re closed-minded to the point of ridiculous, and no amount of effort will ever get them to change. No tactic anyone could come up with could ever get them to listen to outside sources, especially since they’re thoroughly convinced that we’re all evil before they even know what the word “atheist” means. It’s a basic part of all religious teachings.
It’s impossible for atheists to get a worse name, at least where I live. People are more comfortable with sex offenders than atheists in the US. I am NOT joking, and I am NOT exaggerating. Seriously. Here, let’s have an example:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1
We’ve seen this exact line of thought multiple times in the comments to this very comic. Christians think you and I are evil, devil-worshipping nihilistic animals. There is NOTHING that is going to undo that, and there is NO REASON to be civil to that.
Religion is an evil, predatory practice and has no good reason to exist.
And you are either a moron, thinking that calling somebody a troll is any way to conduct a debate, or an asshole, knowing how hollow such an accusation is but doing it anyway.
Nothing either of us can do is going to fix them, but nothing is going to make them worse either. So why should I care? Why, exactly?
I have to deal with asshole Christians on a daily basis, both on the internet and in real life. I’m sick and tired of being civil to a group that has no intent on being civil to me, so forgive me if I decide one of them isn’t worth the effort every once in a while.
I keep seeing this anti-atheist crap in the comments here. They’ve been on every single comment page for every single strip in the last month. Sure, I don’t think Agustin ever said anything along those lines before, the worst one has actually been C. W. Roden, who has taken it upon himself to bash atheists in every single comment he has made, but Agustin was the one I went off on. Is that fair? No. And for that I apologize. I realize I should have waited for Roden to open his mouth, because he’s the one that deserves all this vitriol, but I lost my patience. And that’s all I really have to say about that.
Well gee, that fucking sucked for EVERYBODY, didn’t it? Funny how that works. You all kept kicking and jabbing at atheists until one of them started hitting back, and you didn’t fucking like that, now did you? Well it serves you fucking right for beating up on a minority. Now if nobody hits, nobody has to hit back, so how about we all just shut the fuck up, never do this shit again, and go back to pretending to get along? Sound good? Good.
@ Eric:
Sorry, but I doubt drugging her is going to make her issues go away. If anything, she’ll just develop a dependency on those medications and still be a hateful, violent bigot, because that’s how that sort of thing goes.
@ Avian Mosquito: I don’t see that you’ve established slavery is endorsed by the New Testament, just not condemned. “Slaves, obey your masters” does not mean “do not enter into a system where slavery is not a recognized institution”; I see no reason why those passages should be seen to make it un-Christian to maintain such a system, only that they show it not un-Christian to maintain the institution, either. (Again, preemptively, the Mosaic codification of a system of which slavery is a part is not relevant, because that’s just a particular system, albeit one with the YHWH stamp of approval, but one that not all Christians are within.)
@ Avian Mosquito:
um.. All those scriptures you quoted are from the old testament, which is entirely about the laws and history of the ancient Jews and actually not a part of Christianity at all. Christians who follow those laws do not understand the New Testament, which tells us that the ancient Jewish laws in the Old Testament were abolished by Christ when he established his True church.
so yeah, your problem is actually with ancient Jewish laws, not Christianity.
@ Raen:
I thought we were done. But okay. Let’s just be civil about this then?
Here. From my original post of the matter:
Hell, it’s not even an old testament thing:
Esphesians 6:5 (Jesus loves slavery. Yaaaay.)
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (See? Not an isolated incident.)
Luke 12:47-48 (Beating somebody for an accident? This is “moral”?)
You got the first one. The second reads:
“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.”
The third reads:
“”The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
This is still an edorsement of slavery. And that is all I ever said the new testament did. It endorses it.
@ anonymous christian:
No. Several of those were new testament. Most are, indeed, old testament, but not all of them.
The sad thing, for me, is that how I even come here is by using my favorites button. It’s set to panel 378 – A walk in the park. I saw that, then I read this and I am now very sad.
One thing just occurred to me. She came in for his help here. We’re never going to find out what, I don’t think, but does he still have to help her? After she does this? That’d be a nice big bottle of salt in the wound.
Is it just me, or does the cut of Harriet’s dress exiting the last panel somehow evoke an Inquisitor’s robes?
anonymous christian wrote:
Christ abolishing the mosean laws? Uh, no. To claim he did is to go against the gospels themselves.
Paul is the one who talks about how they don’t apply anymore.
This is because the Gospels and Paul’s Letters are not written by the same groups.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”