Joke stolen from here.
God should learn to butt out of people’s lives. What is it with woman & sex?!?!
Great, as always – the religious derive different orders fr the same nonsense.
“God wills it” was SO mid 12th Century.
This explains so much…
Brilliant – and how true it is that religion warps people who would otherwise be decent, sensible and moderate.
@Jean: Actually bit earlier, 1095, “Deus vult” brought us the crusades (not the Bushy one…), slaughtering a few thousands Jews along the river Rhine as a warm-up on the way, before committing countless unspeakable God-willed atrocities in the Holy (!) Land, just following orders. That wasn’t the CoE yet, though the English king Richard the Lionheart, too, had to try his luck later on (only to find he didn’t have much…)
MrGronk – did you mean “and how true *is it* that religion warps people who would otherwise be decent, sensible and moderate?”
(I realise you didn’t mean that, it’s a rhetorical question, though the question that I suggest you might have meant to ask might not be!)
We are not animals. We were given dominion over all the animals. We are special. Everything was made for us and we were made in God’s image. Uh, I mean just us men. The women can’t have been made in the image of God because…. well, God is a man and women are not men. Should be obvious to all true believers, and utterly incomprehensivble to the rest of us.
Author: On two different computers we can read comments if we use the previous button, or go to the archives, but when we go to a previous day on the calendar off to the right, there are no comments visible under the comics. Thought you might like to know.
Thankyou for that intriguing observation. I have spent 10 minutes painstakingly decoding the second sentence, but not before it managed to tie my brain into the sort of byzantine knot usually seen in old seafaring manuals and the more specialised sort of gay dungeons.
If my statement had been a non-rhetorical question the answer would have been “no”.
Smiley emoticon thus:
Ha! Could God be telling them exactly what they want to hear? (That’s not rhetorical because the answer is obvious.)
Has the Cock & Bull put up a terrace for the (Northern hemisphere) summer? It looks as though the boys are outside. Though those planets seem to be moving very quickly….
Hey, check this out.
“I think a lot of prayers were answered today,” said the governor of Alabama after BP finally shut off the gusher.
So, God decided not to answer prayers for 83 days, and then answer them on the 84th day.
And we give him credit for this?
Stephen Turner those are not planets. That’s a cartoon convention to indicate intoxication.
Here’s another good one: The Catholic Church has decided that (quoting a Yahoo news article) “the attempted ordination of women [is] a “grave crime” subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.”
Hang on – I meant “yes”!
heeh i love it when the lads get drunk.
The new book is great
Shouldn’t these guys be immune to the effects of alcohol?
@Anonymous Fan, re “So, God decided not to answer prayers for 83 days, and then answer them on the 84th day. And we give him credit for this?”:
The time delay between sending up prayer and receiving answer implies that there is some distance between earth and heaven. I recall some research on this, though I cannot find the proper references yet, and if I remember well heaven would be located at approximately 0.6 -1.2 lightyear, assuming the speed of prayer (and its answers) not exceeding the speed of light, indicating also that proximity is also governed by earth and heavens orbits.
Wow, this is my new favorite – it just works on so many levels.
following orders indeed.
Good one j&m!
thanks for the link – astonishing – letting women be priests is as bad as being a pedo priest.
It certainly shows how binary and archaic their thinking is – it’s good or evil, but no nuance of determination
and yet, that church continues to insist that atheists are immoral
Ah yes, it means intoxication, silly me. I did think of that but for some reason the mixture of stars and planets made me discard the idea. Looks like I was looking for too complicated an explanation. And the glasses are nearly empty too.
Hey author, do you think you could ask Mo to explain Islamic toilet etiquette to us? There must be a deep theological reason for using an ODD number of stones.
Athiests are let off the hook to easily. They should have to explain how their lack of belief allows them slectively condem others beliefs while preachng the virtue of no belief. Cultural differences between believers and non believers to be accounted for, as absurdity will play a large part in any explanation.
“absurdity will play a large part in any explanation”
well, maybe for remote origins (Big Bang…), but the medium range (evolution) seems pretty straightforward scientifically. I get the impression that your “imaginary friend” explanations are still unmatched in absurdity (and what do they explain anyway?) wa-llahu a’lam (in wujida ilah)
that’s why I’ve always called these folks “god’s self-appointed henchmen.” I keep saying, hey, if God’s really omnipotent like you say, he doesn’t need your help, stoopids.
Yes, up to the minute scientific theory, the history books are full of intellectual ponticications that evaporated under no other challange than waiting till the next genius arrived. Evolution… what we see is the best it can do? Intelligent design… see evolution.
@ Nassar: Funny you should mention ID – when it’s perfectly known that this was only a label invented by US creationists in order to teach religion in public schools (which is unconstitutional in the US). 200 years earlier, Natural Theology (Paley) was actually a science (Darwin studied it), but alas it was replaced by evolution fifty years later. Yes, science always changes, and we now know a lot of details Darwin didn’t. BUT: Science never goes back (like ID would). Copernicus, too, was “wrong” on most counts, but still, we don’t return to putting the earth in the centre of the cosmos. Even the Catholic church has made peace with both, and the Qur’an neither requires geocentrism nor young earth creationism. That’s why the current Muslim guys copy their (pseudo-) arguments from Bible Belt Evangelicals, adding a fishing fly for good measure…
Nassar ben Houdja:
They should have to explain how their lack of belief allows them slectively condem others beliefs while preachng the virtue of no belief.
“Condemn others’ beliefs”? Persecution complex much? Demanding evidence before taking any of it seriously is not condemnation, it’s standard treatment. And if it isn’t, it should be.
As for “preaching the virtue of no belief” – I don’t recall any atheists preaching that. I believe the acceleration of free falling is ~9.81 m/s^2. I believe CO2 is the byproduct of respiration. I believe I’m sitting in a chair and typing on a keyboard.
Oh, what you really meant was “preaching the virtue of no absurd, unproven belief”? Well, actually, I can see how that is a virtue, and if you need help understanding, we can go over it together.
To be honest, I much prefer Nasreddin Hoja, much wittier…
But God is male, apparently. He never got married, so it is believed. He ostensibly made Man in his own image. Nobody ever reported that He went to a good school. What kind of attitudes would one expect Him to have? I think Jesus has got it just about right here. And in case you’re wondering, believers: I suggest you work on yourselves to forgive God his evident shortcomings, particularly in light of the knowledge that that some humans seem to have advanced a bit in terms of their acceptance of recreational sex, amongst other things.
More discoveries. When the comic shows up without comments beneath it (which it does if you click on a date on the calendar off to the right), clicking on the comic brings up the comments. So it’s no big deal. It’s only taken me a month to find comments under previous comics.
@ Nassar Ben Houdja.
Atheists are not a group with a belief. They are people who think that there is insufficient evidence for a particular belief.
“So it’s no big deal. It’s only taken me a month to find comments under previous comics.”
My math seems to indicate that your search moved (+/-) about 1/3 the speed of prayers as shown above. Not too bad……
I may have got some of this wrong, if so I am happy to be corrected. In English translations of the Bible, many different words for deities are translated as either “God” , “The Lord” or “The Lord God”. This is to give the impression that the diverse religions that contributed to (particularly the earlier parts of) the Bible were talking about the same God. This was to fit in with the Monotheism that came much later.
The word translated as God in the passage “God said let us make man in our own image” was Elohim which means ‘The Gods’. These were a pantheon of male and female gods, when you think about it “The Gods said let us make man in our own image” makes sense in a way that “God said” does not.
On the subject of Scientific theories being superceded. This is basically about changing your outlook when you discover that your present knowledge has been proved wrong. It does not mean that everything that you now know will definitely be proved wrong but if anything is, it is essential to accept this, update your knowledge and move on. The alternative is to continue to believe in something that is now known to be untrue, which is what religions do.
“GOD made me do it” sounds suspiciously like “THE DEVIL made me do it”.
How might one tell the difference? The latter being so infinely devious and all.
The Devil, devious? in what way? In the Bible it is YHWH that is the untrustworthy liar, the Devil always tells the truth.
I wonder why atheist-haters think that “why do you get to condemn others’ beliefs when you don’t have any of your own” is in any way compelling?
Maybe when a Buddhist is going through a mind-clearing meditation session, they can temporarily have no thoughts, but to declare someone who doesn’t believe in one specific thing as a person who believes in nothing? Muy, muy stupido.
To my larger point: a person who doesn’t believe in “anything” (assuming they meant “a god”) would be in an excellent position to argue against ALL god-faiths with equal bias against, an intrinsic nonpartisan.
I love how anti-atheism complains about a lack of belief in anything and then assails same with endless anti-science. We’re not allowed to have no beliefs. We’re not allowed to believe anything not prescribed by religious texts. Best of all: thru the former conflict, the only acceptable “belief” becomes [specific brands of] magic & anti-fact.
“Just following orders”? Is it too late to call a ‘Godwin’?
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.
NAME — Get an avatar
EMAIL — Required / not published
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.NET.