brain

November 13th, 2007

Discussion (17)¬

  1. Personally I think they’re both just being Dicks.

    Oops… That was the last strip, wasn’t it? My bad…

  2. Ahh. Mo scores a point against the barmaid.

    Cynically manipulating semantics perhaps, but he is right. Many an apologist has expected to put an end to discussion in just that way.

    You’ve torn off another great strip, author.

  4. I’ve been wondering when/if they would ever get the last word. If you can call it that… This strip is way too much like real-life conversations I’ve had.

  5. Barmaid isn’t poor. She would expect that at some point, they are male after all… Mo says ‘Actually you can’ when he means ‘you can say it whether it means anything or not’ which is argumentative child logic and no one takes it seriously. With luck the child grows up, with males they tend not to more often than is good for the world. Actually, things might be changing, do you have ladettes in the US? (female lads) Girls behaving like boys, aggressive, hard drinking, loud, thoughtless, argumentative, sulky, noisy…

  8. J&M look too pissed to worry about who’s right or wrong. (And not pissed in the American sense, transatlantic readers: that would just be true to form).

    Maybe an answer to religious conflict: get everyone pissed?

    By jove, I think I’ve solved the problem.

  9. If Mo had said “ACTUALLY HE CAN, ” then the barmaid’s comment would be clearly wrong, since Jesus’s statements are not an attribution to god, but are directly from god.

  11. “Attribution to God” and “directly from God” mean the same thing… Both statements indicate that these are God’s words. Just like the ten commandments are directly from God… God’s very own laws spoken from his own Godly lips to a very old and lonely man standing on a mountaintop talking to burning shrubs…

    It’s all clearly written in that 2000 year old book that’s alot thinner than it used to be about 1200 years ago, with alot of hastily written revisions…

  13. Religion might be more appealing if they did hand out “Jet Packs of Faith.” You know…if they actually worked.

  15. The penal substitution model may be a leap of faith for those who feel no shame. Of course, this personalistic aspect isn’t discussed. Barmaid dismisses the whole issue because her opinion that God doesn’t exist is indisputably correct. Very reasonable – no hypocrisy there whatsoever.

  16. “The penal substitution model may be a leap of faith for those who feel no shame”?

    That makes no sense. If you feel no shame, then you don’t believe there’s anything to punish, regardless of who gets the punishment. If you do feel shame, then the proper response is to expect punishment YOURSELF. If I do something wrong, I wouldn’t expect someone else to pay the price, and I’d feel even more ashamed if an innocent party suffered from my crime. If I do something wrong, *I* am the person who should be punished. Jesus’ punishment only makes sense if it was atonement for his (God’s) own sins. Like, say, the whole expelling-from-Eden incident, or the Flood, or torturing innocent Egyptians for their unelected pharoah’s crimes, etc. etc. etc.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly 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.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.