Comments on: tough http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/ Comic featuring Jesus and Mohammed Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:07:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Why the Argument from Morality (AfM) Fails « Evaluating Christianity http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-144652 Why the Argument from Morality (AfM) Fails « Evaluating Christianity Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:00:05 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-144652 [...] Some theists have tried to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma by asserting that morality isn’t what God commands but merely a reflection of his “nature” or “character.” This doesn’t answer the objection but simply moves it back one level of abstraction; now the question is whether God’s nature is arbitrary or can be evaluated by an independent standard. (This was beautifully and parsimoniously illustrated by the “Jesus and Mo” comic.) [...] [...] Some theists have tried to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma by asserting that morality isn’t what God commands but merely a reflection of his “nature” or “character.” This doesn’t answer the objection but simply moves it back one level of abstraction; now the question is whether God’s nature is arbitrary or can be evaluated by an independent standard. (This was beautifully and parsimoniously illustrated by the “Jesus and Mo” comic.) [...]

]]> By: Chris http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-141323 Chris Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:49:28 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-141323 Somewhere in Proverbs (I think) it says the man who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Does that mean Jesus is going to hell? Somewhere in Proverbs (I think) it says the man who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Does that mean Jesus is going to hell?

]]> By: you http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-68915 you Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:30:08 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-68915 I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL! I somehow got to remeber this one for the next familly dinner. Just the look on their faces, LOL!

]]> By: yelinna http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-64129 yelinna Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:48:32 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-64129 This was damn funny... and circle logic... or whatever they call it. This was damn funny… and circle logic… or whatever they call it.

]]> By: ricard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-53033 ricard Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:19:59 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-53033 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. 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.

]]> By: louis http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52938 louis Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:00:31 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52938 pretty dang funny. i love it when each panel is funnier than the previous one! pretty dang funny. i love it when each panel is funnier than the previous one!

]]> By: Hobbes http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52798 Hobbes Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:24:29 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52798 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. 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.

]]> By: tie http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52752 tie Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:02:36 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52752 that ^ was sarcasm btw ;) that ^ was sarcasm btw ;)

]]> By: tie http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52747 tie Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:19:57 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52747 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, :D 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, :D

]]> By: tie http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52744 tie Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:07:35 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52744 very good one, I lol'ed ;) very good one, I lol’ed ;)

]]> By: mat http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52719 mat Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:16:30 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52719 by the way, AUTHOR: very good one! one of the best! by the way, AUTHOR: very good one! one of the best!

]]> By: mat http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52718 mat Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:12:58 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52718 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 doings”. 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 “right”. 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. 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 doings”. 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 “right”.
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.

]]> By: Brian http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52549 Brian Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:47:46 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52549 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. 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.

]]> By: Brian http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52548 Brian Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:45:56 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52548 Me: See the first episode. It is not an actual depiction of Mo, but a body double. The muslims should be satisfied with that. Me:
See the first episode. It is not an actual depiction of Mo, but a body double. The muslims should be satisfied with that.

]]> By: Adam Tjaavk http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52528 Adam Tjaavk Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:35:29 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52528 There were certainly eggs before chickens. If you mean chicken eggs, modern science would still say the egg - being Darwinian and not Lamarckian. _ There were certainly eggs before chickens. If you mean chicken eggs, modern science would still say the egg – being Darwinian and not Lamarckian.

_

]]> By: Trevor http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52505 Trevor Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:19:29 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52505 @Despard LIES! Chickens! They were born of their ancestors roe! @Despard

LIES! Chickens! They were born of their ancestors roe!

]]> By: Me http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52503 Me Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:48:49 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52503 ummm... aren't you risking the wrath of 2 billion muslims by drawing a comic of Mo' ?? ummm… aren’t you risking the wrath of 2 billion muslims by drawing a comic of Mo’ ??

]]> By: Despard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52483 Despard Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:10:14 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52483 The egg. Ancestors of chickens laid eggs. The egg. Ancestors of chickens laid eggs.

]]> By: Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft » links for 2007-08-18 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52456 Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft » links for 2007-08-18 Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:22:25 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52456 [...] Jesus and Mo » Archive » tough (tags: jesusandmo.net moral philosophie) [...] [...] Jesus and Mo » Archive » tough (tags: jesusandmo.net moral philosophie) [...]

]]> By: spaghettimonster http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/comment-page-1/#comment-52434 spaghettimonster Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:17:24 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/08/17/tough/#comment-52434 @jONES.: That's called Euthyphro dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma Kudos to the Author. This one was a very good. @jONES.:

That’s called Euthyphro dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Kudos to the Author. This one was a very good.

]]>