Hard Onions

Jwrebholz · Post by **Jwrebholz** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:39 pm

I won't say I agree with Ralph on every issue either, but if the only reason I came here was to give him a hard time I'd have gone long ago.

He writes a good comic. Three of 'em actually. That's all I really need to know. While his political and religious views often take center stage in his comic, his beliefs are his business, and mine are mine, and it isn't my place to force my beliefs on others. Despite my occasional gripe I'm a very live and let live kind of person. (F*** with me or my friends though and I will bring a WORLD of hurt down on you)

Jwrebholz · Post by **Jwrebholz** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:41 am

Regarding today's comic--

In the third panel--stating that at the same time there are no absolutes, and that all beliefs are equal is an obvious contradiction. No more than ONE of these can be true.

The first--there are no absolutes. This is wrong. There are at least two absolutes in life--DEATH and TAXES. Everybody dies, and everyone has to pay. You may be able to cheat both, but it'll come back to bite you eventually. (Al Capone was busted for tax evasion. And we all know what happened to Steve Irwin)

The second--all beliefs are equal. This is also wrong (as explained in the comic). Hence, why postmodernism is, for the most part, a crock.

HOWEVER

At the same time, the world is not black and white (as implied in this comic, and as stated by Ralph on a couple occasions on these forums) My way or the highway. With me or against me. I'd be willing to bet most of you in here weren't with me OR against me (at least until you read this--now I'm sure you're in either one camp or the other, and I can probably guess which *dons armored suit*) For every Muslim extremist shouting til he's blue in the face about how we need to blow up America, there's probably a dozen here in America just like the rest of us--trying to make a living and provide for their families. If every Muslim was a fundamentalist extremist like that WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD. There are enough of them that, if it came down to brass tacks, they could probably wipe this country off the map. (there are at least three times as many Muslims as there are Americans--and there are a lot of people who are both!)

Siirenias · Post by **Siirenias** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:28 am

Well, I don't really have a problem with post-modernism. It just sort of evolved into what it is through progression of the fundamental ideas behind America. It's sort of like complaining about HOW and WHY mosquitoes survived to the present.

In addition, I kind of like the idea of "valid and equal." Invalid thoughts don't quite get the same consideration.Just because they are valid and equal, doesn't mean you are obligated to believe it all. The individual has the initiative choose which one to be their truth. And to be honest, I don't find the Christian bible to be more valid than the Muslim bible (which I can't remember how to spell) or even the teachings of Scientology. They all have their bad reps, and, believe it or not, merits. If you give it a chance, you'll find that they honestly aren't all that invalid; and neither is having none whatsoever (although that often leads to being ignored).

Okay, I'm done. Well, close enough to done anyway. Wait, wait. I've got a little left.

Concepts found in today's culture are not, to say, roadblocks or obstacles. They are part of the world we live in, and are not some looming evil (except maybe American pop singers). Sure, it may never have been seen before, or not since far past, but just being new is not cause for alarm. It's only evil if you think it is. And, quite honestly, you can make of what it is. If...yeah, I'm starting not to make sense. I stop now.

*escapes*

Capnregex · Post by **Capnregex** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:41 am

Siirenias wrote:Well, I don't really have a problem with post-modernism. It just sort of evolved into what it is through progression of the fundamental ideas behind America.

If you actally studdy the history, you would discover that the the fundamental ideas behind America had nothing to do with the socialist post-modernism bull-excriment.
I believe the Fundimantal Idea that you are refering to the founders called "Liberty of Consience" or in otherwords. Each individual has the right and responsibility to control their own religious beliefs. To put it in other words...

"A man convinced against is will, is of the same opinion still"

This dosn't mean you don't talk about it.
I like the way one of my heroes says it..

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. --- Joseph Smith

This is the complete opposite of the pigism of the post-modern elitist who has intollerance for any religion. Thinking that Religious Tollerance and Religious Intollerance are the same thing is irrational.

I believe what I believe, and I use my beliefs to govern myself.
Way to go Ralph, and Damn the Torpedos!

Moriarix · Post by **Moriarix** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:52 pm

With regards to how "Everything is equal" has taken traction, I doubt that is has taken traction in many places in that exact state.

I've only known discordians or Chaos Magic users to consider such a belief as valid, though I have encountered people who hold beliefs that could be oversimplified into that.

Basically, everyone has their own path, and each should be left to their own. Then there are really generic and nonrestrictive things believed to apply to everyone. "Do unto others as you'd have then do unto you", etc. Very generic ground rules, leaving the individual up to figure out the details. (Is it okay to eat pork? Can I sleep in on Sunday? Should I pray aloud, or in silence? Is dancing/singing/sleeping acceptable in my religious meetings?)

Anyone equating JHWH/G_d/Jesus/Allah/Odin/etc to the FSM is not trying to say that the latter is a valid belief, but trying to argue that the former is an invalid one for having as much evidence as the latter.

With regards to bashing of Christians, in my opinion it's mostly that all Christians are receiving the backlash against the Extremist Christians who give the rest a bad name. Solution I would see is for the more sane Christians to be more vocal about their sanity and the extremists' lack thereof. (Phelps, as an example of the extremist groups.)

Christianity seems to be under attack alot, with court cases about the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or teachers leading a prayer, or a school putting a Nativity Scene out on the lawn.

I don't think these are attacks on Christianity specifically, but upon government and government sponsored entities activly endorsing a religion.

Capnregex · Post by **Capnregex** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:46 pm

Moriarix wrote:I don't think these are attacks on Christianity specifically, but upon government and government sponsored entities activly endorsing a religion.

Don't kid yourself. If we accept the theology of Christianity, we accept that there is an advisary. The Father of Lies would like nothing more than to increase the severity current condition that RH illustrates.
It's a shame that the dupes that are the perpetrators of the anti-religious movement have been hoodwinked by the lies.

NydaLynn · Post by **NydaLynn** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:48 pm

Might want to explain the FSM a little. Though Wikipedia has a good link on it. Search for 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'

Siirenias · Post by **Siirenias** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:41 pm

I think I meant evolution of it, not a direct progression. The concept has been taken and processed into whatever is in the best interest of...something. You know, it really is a good question as to what and who decides which way things are taken for what benefit. What was originally religious tolerance could easily (not wisely, mind you) be twisted into self-justified intolerance, depending on how things are interpreted.

Moriarix wrote:I've only known discordians or Chaos Magic users to consider such a belief as valid, though I have encountered people who hold beliefs that could be oversimplified into that.

Basically, everyone has their own path, and each should be left to their own. Then there are really generic and nonrestrictive things believed to apply to everyone. "Do unto others as you'd have then do unto you", etc. Very generic ground rules, leaving the individual up to figure out the details. (Is it okay to eat pork? Can I sleep in on Sunday? Should I pray aloud, or in silence? Is dancing/singing/sleeping acceptable in my religious meetings?)

That's basically what I believe (it is sheer coincidence that I favor the Chaos theory in Physics). (also, I believe strongly in reading webcomics on Sundays instead of sleeping)

Oh, also do mind that those were my personal opinions that I explored through observation and philosophy, not research.

Lazerus · Post by **Lazerus** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:05 pm

mayihelpyou wrote:
UncleMonty wrote:As I've seen it, Ralph's been presenting his philosophy, ideals, and worldview for quite some time now. Most of us here tend to agree with a lot of that, and those that don't mostly came to this forum simply to malign him. I'd call that evidence of an effective message.
Exactly. I've raved to anyone who reads online comics about the morality and ethos of what I've seen in his comic, since I started reading it. It is a terribly effective message in that it isn't saying "Believe what I believe or you'll go to HELL!" even if he thinks that.. rather he's saying, through his comic, "this is what I believe is right.. by example of my characters.." I also happen to agree with just about 99% of it. But that's what kept me coming back to it.. The goblin thing is kinda freakin' me out.. but I like it.

Please pardon my language, but bullshit.

I am an atheist living in the bible belt. I've been called amoral, stupid, insane, and even a minion of satan. Been told I'm going to hell, that jthat I'll burn for eternity, and all manner of other unpleasent things. It's miserable, annoying, and I infinitly prefer it to someone who hides what they believe behind a rose colored lens.

If you honestly believe god will send me to hell for not believing in him, say it! That's an important facat of your belief, not something you can handwave away with "Oh, but you didn't ask!". By filtering everything unpleasent out of what you believe, you turn what your saying from a statement of belief into propoganda.

In other words, your lying to make your position look better then it is.

I find hardline christans to, one the whole, be decididly unpleasent people. But at least with them, you know they honestly believe what their saying. With "moderates", trying to find out what they believe is like a struggle. It's hidden behind so much shiny-happy nonsense you almost have to beat it out of them.

And by saying you liked that part of what he said, your really doing a disservice to what good message was in there.

Siirenias · Post by **Siirenias** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:18 pm

Lazerus wrote: If you honestly believe god will send me to hell for not believing in him, say it! That's an important facat of your belief, not something you can handwave away with "Oh, but you didn't ask!". By filtering everything unpleasent out of what you believe, you turn what your saying from a statement of belief into propoganda.

I can't help but imagine that there is some Christian Hell joke in there somewhere. Honestly, I would rather neither. If I choose to burn in the burning hells, that's my business, and I don't need anyone telling me. However, saying you believe in something, yet omitting something just because it isn't pearly, I dislike, I can agree there.

Capnregex · Post by **Capnregex** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:57 pm

Lazerus wrote:I find hardline christans to, one the whole, be decididly unpleasent people. But at least with them, you know they honestly believe what their saying. With "moderates", trying to find out what they believe is like a struggle. It's hidden behind so much shiny-happy nonsense you almost have to beat it out of them.

It's a shame that so many so called Christians arn't.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. -- Christ ( John 13:35 )

“they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” -- God ( Joseph Smith History )

As for going to hell, Eh, I believe actions have consequences.
If I shoot my foot, It's going to hurt.
Doing something I know is wrong (sin) hurts too (hell).

If you can learn to avoid hell on earth, and learn how to live so you can have joy while here, you'll likely have the same after your life here is over as well.
Even if you don't believe in God, per say, you might want to consider learning from some of the people who have learned to live the life they love.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:47 pm

capnregex wrote:It's a shame that so many so called Christians arn't.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. -- Christ ( John 13:35 )

Too true. Far too many "hardline Christians" ignore that other important little quote:

Saint Paul wrote:Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. -- Romans 12:17-21

capnregex wrote:As for going to hell, Eh, I believe actions have consequences.
If I shoot my foot, It's going to hurt.
Doing something I know is wrong (sin) hurts too (hell).

If you can learn to avoid hell on earth, and learn how to live so you can have joy while here, you'll likely have the same after your life here is over as well.
Even if you don't believe in God, per say, you might want to consider learning from some of the people who have learned to live the life they love.

Amen.

Yours truly,

The living-in-Christ,

Wanderer

Lazerus · Post by **Lazerus** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:18 am

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. -- Christ ( John 13:35 )

The bible says a lot of things, many of which are self-contradictory. You can't pull one passage out of a book that is obviously subject to a hellovalot of interpretation and say "They don't follow this, they arn't christan!"

If you believe Jesus was the son of god and that the only way to heaven is through his salvation, you are a christan, peroid. You can firebomb abortion clinics, butcher jews, or whatever else you want, dosn't change that fact.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:46 am

Sorry, but that's what's been done by hate groups. They've taken Christian terminology and applied it to their agenda, then proclaim themselves "Christian" even though they're everything but. There are instructions on 1 Corinthians on how true Christians are to deal with that type of people, but sadly, few churches actually follow that, and thusly, they've become guilty by association.

Lazerus · Post by **Lazerus** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:19 am

The JAM wrote:Sorry, but that's what's been done by hate groups. They've taken Christian terminology and applied it to their agenda, then proclaim themselves "Christian" even though they're everything but. There are instructions on 1 Corinthians on how true Christians are to deal with that type of people, but sadly, few churches actually follow that, and thusly, they've become guilty by association.

......uh, no. That's the True Scottsman fallacy.

If I said "No scottsman eats doughnuts!" and you replied "But there's a guy from scotland over there eating a doughnut." The True Scottsman fallacy would be if I said "Ah, but no true scottsman eats doughnuts." I have just changed the definition of the word to make myself right.

Likewise, by changing the definition of Christan to suit your purposes, your doing the same thing. Look at it this way, if someone has to be nice and respectfull to non-believers to be a Christan, then there were no christans up until the protistant reformation or so. Until that point, and long after, "BURN THE HEATHENS!" was standard policy.

Deckard Canine · Post by **Deckard Canine** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:15 am

Lazerus wrote:If I said "No scottsman eats doughnuts!" and you replied "But there's a guy from scotland over there eating a doughnut." The True Scottsman fallacy would be if I said "Ah, but no true scottsman eats doughnuts." I have just changed the definition of the word to make myself right.

In this case, it's debatable whether the definition did change. Jesus himself specified the criteria, and there's no evidence that he'd said otherwise before that. Then again, they probably didn't have the word "Christian" or any cognate at the time....

Ech, philosophical semantics can be so messy. I agree, however, that simply denying brotherhood with the worse kind of Christians is not all that helpful to anyone.

FWIW, I'm one of those Christians who does not try to judge what will happen to a given individual after death. Rest assured that I will not berate you or keep my firm beliefs firmly guarded. (If I hedge, it means I haven't sorted it all out for myself.)

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:59 pm

Deckard Canine wrote:In this case, it's debatable whether the definition did change. Jesus himself specified the criteria, and there's no evidence that he'd said otherwise before that. Then again, they probably didn't have the word "Christian" or any cognate at the time....

True enough. The word "Christian" was originated (according to the Bible) post-Resurrection, as an insult. After all, it's intended to diminish the origin of the Way from God to "some guy called the Christ". (The original term for a member of the Church was "saint".)

As for Jesus' instructions:

Jesus wrote:Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

That's from Matthew 5. Pretty clear, yes?

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:17 pm

And you're falling for the "if I sit in a garage that makes me a car" fallacy, Lazarus.

The bible dictates quite explicitly how one was to know the difference between someone who was truly a Christian, or just someone exploiting the name of Christ for their own Godless ends. Christianity goes to extreme lengths in its doctrine to clarify that those who did not obey God's commandments were not within God's will, no matter what allegiance they might proclaim. It precautions Christians to BEWARE of those who only give God's gospel lip service--- calling them thieves and wolves in sheep's clothing. It goes on further to expressly condemn those who profess Christ, yet do not live in a Christlike manner.... it in fact judges wayward Christians more closely than it does the unsaved.

Furthermore, it is self evident that the gospel of Christ and the doctrines of Christianity expound a trustworthy way of living and a higher-than-baseline virtue... why else would the villainous and the evil be so eager to cover themselves with the mantle of Christianity if it were not both trusted and trustworthy?

You cannot criticize Christianity for the unChristlike behavior of people, when Christianity itself disavows and judges those who behave in an unChristian manner.... the Christian as being wayward and in transgression; the unsaved as being a false-face. The flock ought not be judged by the deeds of wolves who wear wool. And the question of Christianity is the veracity of its teachings, not the failure of of its all-too-human members to live up to its standards perfectly.

The flock ought not be judged by the deeds of wolves who wear wool.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:51 pm

That's something of a misrepresentation. The bible expressly states, in multiple ways, that those who accept Christ are eternally his, regardless.

"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee..."

"Him shall I in no wise cast out..."

"Neither powers, nor principalities, nor things in heaven, nor in earth... shall separate us from the love of God...."

"None shall take them out of my hand..."

It also expressly states that is by GRACE, through faith. NOT through works. And if we had to labor to KEEP saved, or to "complete" our salvation, it would be no different than if we had to work to earn it in the first place.

It further describes salvation as being a free gift, not by works, and being in a spirit of adoption. God is neither an indian giver, nor a temp agency employer. And when he speaks of "adoption" he doesn't refer to the practice of going down to the animal shelter, picking up a cute puppy, then dumping it back in the pound when it messes the carpet. If we have truly repented and called upon His name for salvation, we are His, body and soul. We can ruin our relationship with him, break His heart, lose fellowship with Him-- but we are still His children. How closely we follow him in life determines our blessedness in this life, and what rewards we shall be given in Heaven when all is said and done.... but not the state of our adoption.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:35 pm

Let this be a lesson to y'all. Never argue theology in a forum moderated by the son of a Baptist preacher!