Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
π Be Nice!
ποΈ Community Standards
𧬠Keep it Real
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
π Post Formatting
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]πΏ Moderation
The following artists are banned from the community.
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
[Jesus sits on a rock, speaking]
A new commandβ―I give you:
Love one another
[an angry character talks back to Jesus]
What if they're something bad like gay, trans, brown, or communist though?
[Jesus is facepalming on his rock]
I don't want to be a messiah anymore
Ah, yes. Discrimination against communists... a huge problem in our society, worthy of being mentioned next to homophobia.
Or you could keep your political views away from things that aren't a choice, like sexual orientation, gender and race.
Just a note, Jesus wasn't actually purple even though he is depicted here as such.
Then explain all the portraits! /s
actually, many scholars today believe jesus most likely was purple, as a result of the water in his body being transmuted into wine. this is why in modern catholic tradition, wine is used to represent the blood of christ.
Guy was a walking DUI, with a BAC of 100%.
this is why the bible contains no mention of jesus driving a car or reciting the alphabet backwards
If his blood were wine it would have an abv of between 8-14 percent, although I believe wine was significantly diluted back then.
At that point id argue it is an ABC
I think with a BAC of 100% I would also be seeing god...
Of course, canon Jesus reply would be "but we're brown ourselves though?"
I honestly don't know what colour of skin people of the levant would have at that time.
The canon version is people complaining about the Samaritans.
Maybe we are due an updated parable: The Good Transwoman
Nothing about all of that in the big book. Now wearing both wool and linen, however...
Contrariwise, you are also commanded to love racists, homophobes, transphobes, and authoritarians. You can certainly try to convince them away from those stances, but you are still supposed to be kind, even generous, to the persons.
Unconditional love can be heartbeatingly hard.
Iβm going with the paradox of tolerance on that.
Only money lenders (we totally didn't secretly mean Jews)
It's amazing that a sect leader that promoted peace and frugality unknowingly created one of the most violent and greedy religions.
Yes it certainly morphs after Constantine makes it the state religion, rather than a cult.
I am reading a book on the Baltic Crusades and it was talking about the diametrically opposed ideas of state violence and a pacifist religion. Essentially, pacifism doesn't work as a state policy. The Christian church struggled to decide what violence the state should be able to commit.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn't fought.
Nowadays, I don't think people even know that Christianity was/is a pacifist movement.
I mean, it should be obvious to Christians today that Jesus repeatedly and consistently made a clear distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and secular nations. Separation of church and state was absolutely one of the premises the early church worked off of as a teaching of Jesus himself. The idea of a "Christian Nation" is indeed antithetical to the very foundations of Christianity. The early history of Christianity is pretty lost on people today and people are quite unaware of just how drastic the changes in Christianity were in the early 300s, and how gigantic of a deal it was for the Roman state to adopt Christianity at the time.
Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible, with near 100% certainty never existed. He was no more real than Harry Potter.
The absolute lack of evidence of existence for a person claimed to be the most significant person that ever lived, and who performed numerous miracles, means that the only reasonable conclusion is that he never actually existed.
It would be like if we had zero evidence for the existence of Cleopatra, outside some scriptures written by a superstitious sect, where the earliest were written 2 generations after her death, by anonymous authors, and based only on hear say, and written in a place that it would take weeks to travel to or even months. With zero contemporary or first hand evidence.
And then imagine Cleopatra performed miracles regularly too.
AND Cleopatra lived 1 generation before Jesus, and 3 generations before the first "books" of the new testament were written.
But in difference to Jesus, there are loads of historical evidence that Cleopatra lived. When she lived, where she lived, and who she was. But not only her, also her family, like father and brother are well documented, and several events Cleopatra was part of are also very well documented.
Add to that that the search for evidence for the existence of Jesus is probably the by far biggest historical and archeological search in history. Spanning almost 2000 years, with massive financing from wealthy Churches especially the Catholic and Mormons have spend insane amounts of money searching for evidence, but not only that, also traditional historical institutions have participated, because they too, despite the absolute lack of reason for it, thought that there ought to be evidence for the existence of Jesus.
This search we know for sure started already in year 200!! And it was pretty intense for more than 1500 years!!! And the search often included scholars, because they too were deluded.
And their combined efforts have turned up nothing but fakes created after the fact. Zero actual historical evidence.
The few pieces (about 3) some claim are evidence are heavily refuted as obvious fakes too.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect, telling people to throw away all of their money (to who?) and performing tricks to pass them as miracles isn't so absurd. There's been a lot of scammers throughput history, he could have simply been one that happened to have a long lasting effect.
It's far from being the most significant person or whatever, more of a butterfly effect of some dude that wanted to have his own cult.
Isn't that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast? That's probably all it was.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect,
There is still no evidence of that. It's just moving the goal post, but in reality it doesn't make a difference.
There are also communications between Christian groups where the personification of Christ is debated, to make it easier for people to understand Christianity.
tβs far from being the most significant person or whatever,
Again you are completely missing the point, because according to Christianity Jesus is clearly the moist significant person to ever live, and if the bible was true, that would be a fact, as his existence is claimed to be the salvation of billions of people through 2 millennia.
So saying he is not, is actually the same as supporting my claim that he never existed.
Isnβt that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast?
No, Christianity was insignificant until the Romans themselves adopted it for political reasons.
Eh, I don't think there's much merit to whether or not Jesus was a real person. The focus should be on the obviously fantastical claims because Christian apologists tend to get all caught up in the idea of Jesus being a "historical person" rather than the wild claim of Jesus being a literal god. I don't reject the validity of Christianity because I'm unsure if Jesus really did exist or not, but rather that the supernatural claims fall embarrassingly short of such tall claims.
I donβt think thereβs much merit to whether or not Jesus was a real person.
Nono that's not how it works, the burden of proof is on those that claim he existed. Without such proof, there is no reason to believe he did.
Ehhh I'd doubt it. Your average Christian isn't violent and/or greedy. It's just the ones that are make the news as it generates clicks. As someone who is actually a Christian, I see non-christians bring up strawmen of things they have seen in the media which I have never seen in real life.
It's also worth realising Christianity is the most populous religion in the world- so things that happened were more likely to be perpetuated by self-proclaimed "Christian" leaders manipulating scripture purely for their own benefit. Things would arguably be worse if another religion had this amount of followers and influence.
Christianity has been the cause for wars.
Even "moderate" Christians are deluded, and can get the idea from their priest that they need "therapy" for their LGBT child.
And can argue that morality comes from god, which is insane since god doesn't exist.
Being deluded makes Christians irrational, and prone to aggression when they feel their convictions are not accepted.
The problem with that is that obviously all the superstitious parts and the bigotry of Christianity does not deserve acceptance and much less respect.
So when Christianity meets evidence based reason, Christians are absolutely prone to be aggressive.
We have seen this through hundreds of years, where scientists were punished by Christians for proving actual facts, or even just suggesting them. Again obviously a scientific theory does not deserve punishment whether right or wrong.
The same is true today, where the basis for the major opposition to abortion in western democracies is Christianity.
Even sometimes demanding the banning of abortion in situations where continuing the pregnancy will mean the death of both the mother and the fetus! Only religious beliefs can make people so irrational and evil for no benefit to themselves.
AND these people even believe they are doing the right thing, because they are deluded. Being deluded is inherently dangerous, not only to the person who is deluded, but also to people around them, and society as a whole.
manipulating scripture
Which is easy both because the people believing it are delusional and easily fooled, and because scripture is so full of self contradictions, that you can pick a side.
But lets just remember that scripture not only allow slavery, it actually condones it.
And the recommended action if a women is suspected to have been unfaithful to her husband, is to poison her to prove her guilt or innocence, if she dies it is considered proof that she was unfaithful.
The bible is not medieval, because that would be way more modern, it is not barbarian, because it would be way more civilized.
The bible is a bronze age superstitious attempt to explain reality, and with zero understanding the only explanation they could come up with was of course superstitious, and in this case based on an "almighty" god. And in the exact same manner they tried to make rules and define morality, but with very little understanding of anything, except of course the understanding common in the bronze age.
This is the guide Christians choose to follow, and don't try to gas light me into thinking that doesn't have negative consequences.
"Your average Christian" depends on where you live. I have "christians" in my family, in my neighborhood, at work, what one would likely describe as average around here, that have expressed at minimum a denial of the humanity of those who are different from them, seemingly instituted or encouraged by their "Christian" culture. I know this isn't all christians, but it seems like where I live, the churches that preach inclusivity are few in number and slim in attendance, and although still not a majority, there are more that preach AGAINST inclusivity, and the predominant culture among most christians regardless seems to lean in that direction. In the lead up to the 2024 election, a number of "christians" close to me expressed extremely violent potentialities should Trump not win, pointing directly toward acceptance and secularism as their motivations and justifications.
You have expressed that things would be worse in the world if it would be some other religion. You think a world where any other religion holding a majority would be worse, is that what you're saying? That is quite an assertion, and I'd like to see you prove that. Imagine if secular humanism were more central in people's lives... What a world we could have.
Edit: I do live in a pretty shitty place, to be fair, haha
I am starting to get that impression.
What is the threshold for inclusivity, though? For example, my Church does have gay, trans and cohabiting people in the congregation, but we don't necessarily preach that these things are okay. However, it is worth acknowledging that everyone is sinful, so we cannot cast the first stone (referencing John 8:1-11 here) and that we aren't saved by being perfect either. Afaik they aren't even excluded from membership. They are people made in God's image whom Christ died for also.
I doubt the world would be better off with secular humanism. It is all generally based on opinion.
There are movements like The Manosphere which I feel would have been a lot more influential if it weren't for Christianity
we donβt necessarily preach that these things are okay.
This by itself is a problem, because people need to be taught aspects of morality, and this is absolutely one of them.
LGBT is an oppressed minority, and not teaching that LGBT is OK, is failing to help LGBT people against bigotry whether it's from Christians or not. The fact you even mention cohabiting people is astonishing, as if there was any reason whatsoever to be against it!? It is not the bronze age anymore.
it is worth acknowledging that everyone is sinful, so we cannot cast the first stone
This is one of the absolute worst teachings of Christianity, that you are born with sin inherited from previous generations, and you need Jesus Christ to help you with that.
we arenβt saved by being perfect either.
No you are saved by being a faithful mindless sheep.
I doubt the world would be better off with secular humanism. It is all generally based on opinion.
This is just the ignorance that can be expected from a religious person.
Humanism is based on ethics that evolve with increased knowledge from scientific evidence. For instance the bible teaches us that animals have no soul, and for that reason Christians can conclude it is OK to mistreat animals, because they don't actually feel anything. ( For instance Descartes)
Scientific evidence on the other hand, show this to be very clearly false. The emotions of many animals are almost exactly similar to our own emotions. And anyone who isn't a deranged psychopath can see that with their own eyes.
The claim that Humanism isn't better than the bible is outright deranged.
It is my experience again that adherents to the Manosphere and this hyper-masculine rejection of empathy are christians, but as above, I live in a shitty place. You seem like a good person and you're devoted to the kinder aspects of your religion. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I'd rather not spend my time in the spaces I've described with those people where it can be avoided. I'd rather not base my beliefs on ideas about inherent guilt and blood sacrifice, superstition and unprovable supernatural claims, where differences in interpretation can lead to these seemingly abhorrent separations from one church to another. Instead, and I suppose that you're correct that this is just an opinion, I think a better world would be found when we remove ourselves from these ancient notions of the world around us. I do hope the best for us all, as I'm sure you do also.
I'm legitimately glad that your personal experience of Christianity has been a net positive for you.
I was raised in a very standard First Assembly of God church until I was 12 and then my parents pivoted back to Catholicism. The experiences I had growing up in an evangelical paradigm were horrifying, especially in hindsight. I'm still unpacking the religious trauma in therapy today, nearly three decades after walking away.
So, based on my personal experience, the day to day Christians are precisely the greedy and violent ones that fucked me up, abused me relentlessly, and destroyed my sense of self-worth, not the blowhards on the news. Many of us are walking wounded from the divisive, hate-based, soul-crushing doctrines we were raised in under the guise of Christian love.
You probably are an American. You guys are just built different.
It could even be a cultural thing- a lot of the hurt I hear comes from the USA. A lot of UK ex Christians (if they even identify as that) were just culturally Christian and were just bored by Church
Also, I am sorry that you went through that.
βDID I FUCKING STUTTER?β
"That's it. Get my whip. And a table."
Another fun question: What if I'M gay, trans, brown or communist, what does the church have for me?
OH a special treat for you a lifetime of feeling guilty about who you are.
brown and communist arent sins gay and trans are yet all of us are sinners thus gay and trans people shouldnt be hated their sin should
"I don't hate you, I just hate what you are"
Christians truly don't hear themselves when I talk
do not identify with your sin
RIght? I'll admit I mucked it up a bit, people aren't born really communist lol. But I think most people get my point.
Or left handed!
Nail it.