Random Comic
core

core

Flattr this for Jesus

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (26)¬

  1. Rob says:

    … I like the pigeon …

  2. louis says:

    while the form and not the substance are being mentioned: nice layout. i like the different angles.

    precious.

  3. TB says:

    I think the story needs new ideas. Self critisizing and admitting that Abrahamic religions are bullshit is becoming old.

    I trust the author will see this.

  4. Marc says:

    Perhaps a “bullshit identity” is better than no identity at all.

    Without such bullshit identities, where would politics be?

  5. JohnnieCanuck says:

    Well, actually all religions share the b/s characteristic. By definition.

    It’s just a lot harder to find all the places to insert the pin when you don’t know another religion well.

    I like the way the author keeps finding new ways to contemplate the foolishness of the witless delusionals.

  6. carolita says:

    That’s MY pigeon! It visits here, sometimes!

  7. carolita says:

    And anyone who’s religious ought to be humble enough to admit to the possibility that his identity may be bullshit. There’s way to much individuality fusing with religiosity these days. What ever happened to the humble religious person who just minded his own business? When did the individual become so important? Even suicide bombing is a glorification of the individual’s right to do something with his own life on behalf of a conviction. (Not to mention the goodies promised in Heaven).

    There should be a law that everyone should keep their religion a secret. The idea that a religion can be based on evangelism is just as dumb as saying a religion can be based on smacking people in the face with a whipped cream pie.

  8. author says:

    It is true. The pigeon belongs to Carolita. What can I say? If you have to steal a pigeon, steal it from the best in the business. It is, in that sense, a homage pigeon. (Thanks for not suing me!)

  9. tie says:

    Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

  10. ricard says:

    (Almost) a classic Jesus & Mo. At the heart of the strip is the powerful and probably irrefutable point that religious belief *is* like political or aesthetic belief: it relies on non-falsifiable narratives to build its case about the nature of reality, truth or morality. If the witless delusionals (thanks for this blissful expression, JohnnieCanuck) want to make such narratives the basis of their identity, then more fools they. No wonder they’re so defensive: first they depend for their identity on (in some cases translations of translations of translations of) the nonsensical writings of dead, old, self-appointed men, and second, they lack the imagination to invent an identity for themselves that doesn’t depend on the obsolete inventions of such men. Poor people, so grossly deluded.

  11. Mooser says:

    Such narratives are not the basis of my identity, just an adjunct to my identity, plus, it gives me a certain je nes sais pas, a certain espieglerie, which women find completely resistible, sil vous plait!
    C,mon, try and tell me all you ladies aren’t getting one hell of a frisson right this very minute!
    Yup, I thought so, you’re non plussed, aintya!

  12. Mooser says:

    Pardon my Spanish, it’s been a while!

  13. yelinna says:

    A mí me sonó a francés, no español.
    he he he, just kidding :) :)

  14. yelinna says:

    “A mí me sonó a francés, no español.” = “it sounded to me like french, no spanish”.

    Pardon my english, it’s terrible (for sure)!!

  15. I don’t know why anyone would consider a religious identity any more profound or foundational than anything else someone might define themselves by identifying with. Identifying yourself with something is all pretty much the same process — whether it’s a bagel or a deity.

  16. jeroboambramblejam says:

    pi·geon
    n. … 2. Slang: One who is easily swindled; a dupe.

  17. rintinscrabbleweed says:

    I worship The Pigeon.

    (wor·ship
    n. 1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.)

  18. JohnnieCanuck says:

    There’s many a church that has been blessed by pigeons.

    The ones that flock below the roof leave their gold, hoping to buy a way into the heavens. Those that flock above do not leave gold and already have access to the heavens, all the heavens there are.

  19. Jason says:

    Abrahamic religion has not been proved wrong, but rather to the contrary. Carefully search the prophecies. If ANYONE is even MILDLY brave enough to VENTURE out from an atheistic POINT OF VIEW, then it would SERVE you well to research Biblical prophecy. But I know that most of you won’t, you’ll just come to your own conclusions without any research. A study showed that not all people have a right to an opinion, because of ignorance. I hear the wardrums, luckily I will never come to this site again to fight your verbal battles. The search for truth is not ended with a sound argument.

  20. Mephisto says:

    “You are too ignorant to understand The Truth” = “You did not come to the same conclusions as I have done and you talk not the same way as I do. And that is making me angry, because I like people, who do what I want.”

  21. Smeech says:

    @ Jason

    “Abrahamic religion has not been proved wrong, but rather to the contrary.”

    Who decided this? Link?

    “Carefully search the prophecies.”

    Which prophecies?

    BTW : Typing key words in caps doesn’t make your argument more sound/believable, but that’s just my POINT OF VIEW.

  22. mjm202036 says:

    for Jason:

    I know you say you won’t be coming back to argue; but there is an argument to your statement.

    “…not al people have a right to an opinion, because of ignorance.”

    This statement shows the trouble with religious zealots and their dogma. It basically says that an opinion (not a theory that requires study and research) is not part of a persons right to be a free thinker. This can just as easily be said that the person is not allowed to have the free-will to think on their own. So, in the eyes of Chistianity, where free-will is the sole reason that people suffer condemnation, you argue that they do not have a right to have it. Would this be the same case if they did research and came to the same conclusion they already hold and still disagree with your way of thinking Jason?

  23. T Bozz says:

    Hehe, Jason sure is keen. I’m new to these, love ‘em by the way (got here from russellsteapot.com), there’s been thousands of years of highly publicised religious mumbo jumbo, lets face it, religion started through fear and the need for control. Its been re-written (by man BTW who’s seriously flawed when compared to the highly beardy and generally uninterested ‘god’) soo many times it’s got to have lost its focal point by now and there’s so many contradictions in the text anyway, let alone all the changes over time. I’d love the power to change a religious document so that it’s ok for me to divorce my wife and marry another, and another, and another. Maybe with a few be-headings thrown in for good measure. Do kings go to hell?

    I’m going through the comics backwards, which does make for interesting reading when some of the comics follow on from previous ones, but it keeps me guessing. Jason is always getting wound up by us ‘non believers’, and soo often you bite Jase don’t you. You could argue that its easier to be an atheist because we’re not going to hell if we doubt the word of god, and that surely as a ‘believer’ doubting the word of god means instant punishment, if not by a fiery stick then certainly at your next confession, (there’s an interesting one, forgive me father i have sinned; last week i raped and murdered a little girl…….ok you’re clean, or is that a step too far, is there a point of no return for sinners, a bit like in back to the future 3 (too surreal? definately too surreal) its almost as bad as roman catholics, i wonder how full of gangsters heaven is with the whole absolution on their deathbed thing? Always loved that song by muse too, but i’ve come completely off the point so i’m going to close the parenthesis now), but surely it is better to (you all still with me right?) be skeptical about everything you hear and its down to you to decide whether you believe something or not. If i told you that i had the secret to eternal life and it was only going to cost you a night with your wife you’d probably want to read up on it a little first. If not then your wife is going to be pretty miffed when you get home with a hand full of ‘magic beans’ Religion does not allow its follows this luxury, nay, basic human right. I’ve seen some great videos on you tube, one in particular was an interview with Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Hawkins and Carl Sagan and not one of them refuted the existence of god, they just said as yet there is no evidence to prove it, and with out evidence what you have is basically a school ground argument. Some thing that is fact ‘because i said so’. My mum’s fave.

    Anyways, Jase, can i call you Jase? How about J? J-Man? Cool. You should have stuck to your guns and not come back (the thing about me reading backwards is that i’ve seen all your posts, post this post, hence my post). I think its quite obvious that people who are not indoctrinated by religion are far more open minded than those who are. And as an end game, keeping an open mind is probably a good idea. Its becoming much more socially acceptable to be an atheist nowadays, which is good considering religion is pushed upon kids from a very early age, when they have little to defend themselves with.

    I’m going to get off my horse now and pick up all my toys, but thank you for your time, i’ve quite enjoyed my ramblings.

    Love and fishes,

    T Bozz

  24. fenchurch says:

    People like Jason doesn’t seem to understand that a lot of atheists became atheists simply *because* they studied the bible.

    The impression that a given atheist was never religious nor has ever studied the bible is a laughably facile position.

  25. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Jason says:
    August 12, 2007 at 1:19 am
    [.......] it would SERVE you well to research Biblical prophecy.

    Do you mean those prophecies that were written after the events they predicted? Or the vague, Nostradamus style ones that can be made to fit many, many events – but only in retrospect?

  26. ottebrain says:

    So, God hasn’t not been proved. But, God hasn’t been proved either. Prophecies don’t exist. They are impossible to make. Do you see where I am going? If you studied the Bible and then the Theory of Evolution I’m sure you will see which one is more plausible. Everyone has a right to their own opinion too, but before you publish it on a largely atheist website, please research it as it is likely to be heavily quashed. And yes, they probably were written after, or altered, or maybe twisted to mean something else as they were already committed to paper.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.