And right Adam,
The genetic change would happen in the gamete or gamete forming cells. Therefore, the egg would be different before it could hatch into an organism. The egg came first.
In fact, doing what is “right†has never been something stable and universal. This alone is enough to disprove the existence of god’s commandments, thus god itself (himself in most cases). In every different society and time there are different “right doingsâ€. It is quite simple: doing what is “right†is a SOCIAL CONVENTION, an HABITUS, a behaviour that is socialized (shared by means of teaching and comunicating) by most members of society. This is necessary for a society to function, and these “right doings†change as society changes. Of course many people aren’t socialized correctly or suffer some sort of trauma so it is obvious that some may not do what is “rightâ€.
To talk about morality as something common to human kind is just as weak. Morality -if you can say such a thing exists- is socially constructed and is NOT universal. Of course many “right doings†(or moralities) are shared by most societies, simply for practical reasons, like: do not kill, do not sleep with your sister etc.
Muhammed at 54 married 6 year old A’yesha and consummated at 9 (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310)
or in the bible, if your newly wed wife is not a virgin, you must take her to your father in law doorsteps and stone her to death. Deuteronomy (22:13-21)
therefore, paedophilia is ok, stoning to death is ok , that solves the problem, if god commands it or the prophet does it it (since we get our morals from scripture) it is good. No questions asked.
I once wrote a letter to the editor in response to another person’s letter that suggested we “return to the laws of the Bible.” I pointed Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which states that if a mans son will not obey his parents, he must be taken before the village and stoned to death.
Then I asked if that is what the person was suggesting, or shall we pick and choose what Bible laws we want to enforce?
After the letter was published, I got a phone call from a reader. The man actually thought I was advocating for such punishments, and said that he agreed with me. He said that’s what God’s law says, so that’s what we must do.
Needless to say I was astounded. I don’t have a habit of calling people idiots (other than Bush, of course), but this guy deserved everything in my formidable arsenal of expletives.
It’s scary to know we have folks who can be every bit as dangerously fanatical as any fanatical Muslim, or one of any other religion, for that matter.
This is a very good illustration of the classic paradox of goodness and divinity. It’s blissfully powerful, in that it alone is sufficient to refute, irreversibly and forever, any notion that goodness derived from, or sanctioned by, God, is nonsensical. It shows that connecting goodnes with God in any way is at least nonsensical and at most impossible to maintain meaningfully. Any rational person who was also religious (no oxymoron or contradiction intended) should, on knowledge of this logical conundrum, give up religion for ever, or at least abandon all the moral dimensions of religion and just embrace some vague metaphysical mysticism.
I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL!
Leave a Reply
Updated twice a week
NICE T-SHIRT(Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Others available, including NEW "street-safe" styles! Click the pic to see.
BRAND NEW! By popular demand - "Faith is...".
August 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Hehe! I’m loving those comics…
August 17th, 2007 at 6:20 am
That crazy Mo…! He’s not a prophet for nothing, you know..
August 17th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Remember, there’s no “I” in prophet.
Unless of course you meant “profit”.
But that wouldn’t be out of place either.
I’m just saying…..
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
August 17th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Good one, Author!
August 17th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
While we’re on this subject, which exactly did come first; The Chicken or the Egg?
ooo… Fried chicken and Scrambled Eggs for dinner… mmmmmmm…
August 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
@jONES.:
That’s called Euthyphro dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Kudos to the Author. This one was a very good.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
[...] Jesus and Mo » Archive » tough (tags: jesusandmo.net moral philosophie) [...]
August 18th, 2007 at 12:10 am
The egg. Ancestors of chickens laid eggs.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:48 am
ummm… aren’t you risking the wrath of 2 billion muslims by drawing a comic of Mo’ ??
August 18th, 2007 at 6:19 am
@Despard
LIES! Chickens! They were born of their ancestors roe!
August 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
There were certainly eggs before chickens. If you mean chicken eggs, modern science would still say the egg - being Darwinian and not Lamarckian.
_
August 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Me:
See the first episode. It is not an actual depiction of Mo, but a body double. The muslims should be satisfied with that.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
And right Adam,
The genetic change would happen in the gamete or gamete forming cells. Therefore, the egg would be different before it could hatch into an organism. The egg came first.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
In fact, doing what is “right†has never been something stable and universal. This alone is enough to disprove the existence of god’s commandments, thus god itself (himself in most cases). In every different society and time there are different “right doingsâ€. It is quite simple: doing what is “right†is a SOCIAL CONVENTION, an HABITUS, a behaviour that is socialized (shared by means of teaching and comunicating) by most members of society. This is necessary for a society to function, and these “right doings†change as society changes. Of course many people aren’t socialized correctly or suffer some sort of trauma so it is obvious that some may not do what is “rightâ€.
To talk about morality as something common to human kind is just as weak. Morality -if you can say such a thing exists- is socially constructed and is NOT universal. Of course many “right doings†(or moralities) are shared by most societies, simply for practical reasons, like: do not kill, do not sleep with your sister etc.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
by the way, AUTHOR: very good one! one of the best!
August 20th, 2007 at 1:07 am
very good one, I lol’ed
August 20th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Muhammed at 54 married 6 year old A’yesha and consummated at 9 (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310)
or in the bible, if your newly wed wife is not a virgin, you must take her to your father in law doorsteps and stone her to death. Deuteronomy (22:13-21)
therefore, paedophilia is ok, stoning to death is ok , that solves the problem, if god commands it or the prophet does it it (since we get our morals from scripture) it is good. No questions asked.
I don’t see a problem,
August 20th, 2007 at 2:02 am
that ^ was sarcasm btw
August 20th, 2007 at 10:24 am
This one is priceless.
Ti, I know what you’re talking about.
I once wrote a letter to the editor in response to another person’s letter that suggested we “return to the laws of the Bible.” I pointed Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which states that if a mans son will not obey his parents, he must be taken before the village and stoned to death.
Then I asked if that is what the person was suggesting, or shall we pick and choose what Bible laws we want to enforce?
After the letter was published, I got a phone call from a reader. The man actually thought I was advocating for such punishments, and said that he agreed with me. He said that’s what God’s law says, so that’s what we must do.
Needless to say I was astounded. I don’t have a habit of calling people idiots (other than Bush, of course), but this guy deserved everything in my formidable arsenal of expletives.
It’s scary to know we have folks who can be every bit as dangerously fanatical as any fanatical Muslim, or one of any other religion, for that matter.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am
pretty dang funny. i love it when each panel is funnier than the previous one!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 am
This is a very good illustration of the classic paradox of goodness and divinity. It’s blissfully powerful, in that it alone is sufficient to refute, irreversibly and forever, any notion that goodness derived from, or sanctioned by, God, is nonsensical. It shows that connecting goodnes with God in any way is at least nonsensical and at most impossible to maintain meaningfully. Any rational person who was also religious (no oxymoron or contradiction intended) should, on knowledge of this logical conundrum, give up religion for ever, or at least abandon all the moral dimensions of religion and just embrace some vague metaphysical mysticism.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
This was damn funny… and circle logic… or whatever they call it.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL!