GPOY circa 1998
So will she go super rage on Ethan when she discovers the truth?
In Ethan’s defense he hasn’t lied yet. In her defense, she has a right to be angry at the sin. Now it will come across as angry at him at first because this is Joyce. Eventually though, being a Christian myself with the same moral convictions as Joyce, because I hate lying just as much as she does, I say she will mellow out, forgive him and continue to be his friend. I get mad at people yes, but I never hate them or try to outcast them/go for their head. I continue to be their friend.
I think Ethan, however, will make sure to keep her calm and tell her what she needs to hear, in a quiet manner. I believe he will know how to help her handle the situation since he’s got that kind presence about him. You get my drift?
On another note, Mike is being strangely calm about all of this. I’m scared about that, lol!
First, Ethan doesn’t need a defense, because he hasn’t done anything wrong. Second, Joyce has no right to be angry, becasue Ethan hasn’t done anything wrong.
Yep. Joyce has absolutely no right to be angry. None.
She sure doesn’t. Unless Ethan lies to her, but, hey, how likely is that to happen? XD
Well, it was obvious what kind of relationship Joyce expects and Ethan went with it because he “wanted” a “girlfriend” to “hide” his homosexuality. When Joyce asked him on a date, he refrained from telling her the truth. That’s technically lying.
She should not be angry with him for being homosexual; rather because he suggested something that never can be.
But has he suggested anything? Maybe he just likes her as a friend, and is socially clueless (or wilfully blind), that he hasn’t picked up on her vibe yet?
Socially inept, or trolling?
This is a webcomic, so I’m guessing the former.
It’s technically deceit actually.
Obviously some people doesn’t know the meaning of sin.
And idk whatsup but Ethan looks like some one just told him
he’s gay and he went along with it and is internally fighting it.
This is my first comic of the walkymiltiverse so I don’t know exactly what he went through
Well since she views homosexuality in the same light as lying and she apparently “hates lying” he has every reason to lie to her.
Considering that the last person who lied to her in a really big way also tried to rape her, and considering that her generally trusting nature makes her very vulnerable to deception, I’d say she has PLENTY of reason to be angry about liars.
Ethan does not need to tell her the whole truth about
his homosexuality, but he’s venturing further and further into a relationship with her, letting her believe that they have a romantic future together, and everything about him suggests that he knows better. All he really needs to say is “I just don’t feel about you that way,” which would hurt Joyce for sure, but not as much as it eventually will to string her along like this.
But his “cover identity” matters too much to him. She’s his unknowing beard.
FWIW, insofar as actions speak, I think Ethan letting her hold his hand could be considered a lie.
Thank you! Whether or not his homosexuality is wrong or right wasn’t really the point here, but that he’s leading Joyce on. Leading someone on may not be directly “lying” but it is a deception. It’s causing someone to believe something that’s not true, which serves the same purpose as a lie.
Thus, Ethan is doing something wrong here. I still like the character and can understand why he’d be doing it, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong.
In short, this has the potential to develop into a Hank/Clarice situation. Which we know ends in gut punches.
Ethan is trying to pretend like he’s interested in her, even though he can’t possibly be. How is that not wrong?
Ethan is stringing Joyce along because he wants to wallow in self denial. I mean, Joyce’s stance on homosexuality is certainly less than enlightened, but Ethan is the only one who’s actually doing anything wrong at the moment. Even Mike, though he certainly *means* ill, is only calling attention to an 800lb gorilla that will need to be addressed sooner or later.
You know, other than leading a girl on so that he can use her as a cover to help him lie to the world about something about himself that he isn’t fully secure about.
But, hey! Nothing wrong with being used like that right? Joyce would be nuts to complain about it.
Because any time a guy spends time with a girl, it’s for one of only two reasons: get in her pants or lead her on because he’s gay and ashamed. He couldn’t possibly just like her and want to be friends with her. No, that’d be crazy.
Your comment would carry more weight if the specific case you’re discussing wasn’t heavily implied to be the second reason. You’re trying to argue a general case when the rest of us are discussing the specific case.
Am I defending homophobia? Hell no. But at the cold hard facts, Ethan is being kind of a dick right now.
I see a character who doesn’t want his sexuality to get in the way of a new friendship with a girl he enjoys hanging out with, one who is completely oblivious to her intentions. I’m really not interested in how much “weight” my comments carry with people who seem determined to criticize a gay male character for daring to spend time with a hetero female character.
You have a point, and we’ve not seen enough of what’s going on here to know if he’s actually leading her on or if he just wants to hang out with her. As the story progresses we may find that Ethan does actually tell her he’s only interested in friendship. However, the way the story has been going so far has only shown us that Joyce is becoming very interested in Ethan and he’s not only not trying to stop it, but is actually allowing her to think it. Granted, he’s probably just being nice, but until the story shows us more I completely understand the side stating he’s leading her on.
Nooo…in past comics it’s pretty clear he’s only around Joyce because he wants to pretend he’s straight and she’s willing to date anyone because she really wants to be in a relationship. He started hanging out with her right after a comment was made that he could simply pretend to be straight, and even Joyce’s roommate saw it.
He has obvious intent of using her. He may think it’s fine because they’re friends, but he’s using her.
If you look back at Ethan’s story, he is definitely conflicted being gay, which we learned when Mike caught him eating Chick-fil-A. I think he wants to try being straight, which of course won’t work. He’s still misleading Joyce and it’s wrong. But it’s also because of predominant opinions in his life like Joyce’s that are leading him to do it. I’m not excusing his actions, but there is a rationale for it.
But as for Joyce, she does seem to have the opinion that the only reason to have a male friend is to date and eventually marry them. But her situation is easier to deal with because she’s friendly, misguided, but also likely to learn. I just hope Ethan opens up to her and lets her, hopefully in as less a traumatic way for both as possible.
Just what I’d expect to hear from somebody with an Ethan avatar.
He’s mislead someone into believing he has a romantic interest. That’s actually quite wrong regardless of sexual preference.
And it’s not fair to Amber, who spent a lot of time and effort into helping him come out.
A lie by omission is still a lie.
He hasn’t lied yet because she hasn’t asked, so he should be good.
But sometimes you gotta lie!
Great subversion in the last panel. Well done.
Is that Lisa from Penny and Aggie?
Looks like Quiltbag to me.
Well, he does hang out here in the forum, maybe he is picking up plot points?
QUILTBAG is the sequel to Penny&Aggie. And yeah, it’s Lisa from there.
As long as there are no beverage glasses in her hand, he should be fine. =P
Just as long as Mike is there to observe and not chaperone
You just KNOW Mike is hoping that Joyce will ask him to chaperone a date with Ethan.
“Mike, you haven’t punched Ethan all night! He’s not being lustful? That’s great!”
*Drew walks by in a swimsuit heading to the campus pool*
LOL, oh my yes, this needs to happen
Is it just me and my naive high school mind, or is gong to a campus pool at night awfully strange if you aren’t an aspiring olympic?
Going to the campus pool at night while wearing a swimsuit and being sober is very unusual.
Well, they are in the south. If it’s still warm (which it should be) it’s totally possible someone would cross campus to the pool in a swimsuit in the evening. Even sober.
They’re in Indiana. About as south as New Jersey.
And even if they were in the South, going swimming in the middle of the night isn’t really a good idea once you get to August. June? Maybe. July? Sure! August? Not even remotely.
Ethan’s face in that last panel.
Oh my god.
For Walky’s sculpted caramel.
“I cover walky’s sculpted caramel”
“I gossip about walky’s sculpted caramel”
“Cover” or “Covet”? XD
I heard this in Sinistar’s voice.
Free-association moment: I now hear Sinistar’s voice when I read Joyce’s dialogue in the last panel. Wonderful how that works, isn’t it?
By all technicalities it looks like Mike is going to heaven then.
He wants to do Jesus’s mom for a nickle and punch God in the face!
Ah, that’s the nice, sane Joyce we know and love. *eye roll*
Ethan, run. Just run don’t stop. Run!
And he ran
He ran so far away
And he ran
He ran all night and day…
couldn’t get away
Mike is like Genie from Aladdin, except more subtle.
Seriously. Give him a chalkboard, and he’ll write “Tell her the TRUUUUUTH!” on it.
In his defense. A unicorn crapping rainbows is more subtle than the genie from Aladdin.
But that’s not actually Mike’s goal. He’s just trolling
Mmm, debatable. A lot of Mike’s cruelty does come with an implicit or explicit moral message. This is kind of Mike’s favorite type of situation, one in which he can be a dick to his friends while also teaching them a lesson.
(not to say there aren’t some situations in which he’s just a jerk for the lulz. Putting books in Walky’s backpack, for instance.)
Because that way they can’t really blame him, can they?
GPOY = Gratuitous Picture Of Yourself
For those feeling too lazy to google
Also, it is kind of crazy to think of Willis like that.
The way the website is organized, I read the GPOY bit…and then there’s his “hail to the slash” picture right underneath. It’s crazy how much people change.
I bet Joyce getting super angry and scary kinda turns Mike on.
I wish that so much. Joyce and Mike…
Ok. I love what Joyce says. Because that’s what I’ve been saying for years. Even if she’s fictional, I’m glad to not be the only person to have that thought process.
I…can’t…explain it…any better…than this…
It’s obvious that, just like Joyce, you lust (after caramel abs), you gossip (about caramel abs), and you covet (caramel abs).
Also, you hate lying homosexuals. ;p
Hee hee, nicely done.
I would add, though, that she’s doing exactly what a lot of Christians DO do. They treat people with different temptations differently. Or they out-and-out commit the sin of condemning someone else. Someone below said it really well–Jesus himself was tempted, so being tempted is not a sin. Acting on temptation is sin. And yet, coming out to Christians about particular temptations is WAAAY hard sometimes, because they look at you all funny–a dude once said to me, really frustrated-like (I’m a chick), “why are you into girls? I just don’t understand it. I’m not into guys!” and I was all like…”uh…because of the same reasons you’re into girls?” It was like…’der!’ But he had a REALLY hard time dealing with my temptation, my attraction, and my struggle, to the point that he was really upset for a while. That was HIS sin, maybe. I dunno, I don’t judge. But he overcame that. And I’m overcoming my own temptations. And that’s how the church is supposed to work–a group of people loving on each other, and laying aside themselves as living sacrifices for God.
Joyce isn’t exhibiting that. She’s exhibiting everything that makes those of us who are in both camps–same-sex-attracted, and strict evangelicals–very lonely.
“Hey it is great to see someone else have reconciled conflicts between what my faith says and my ethics tell me in a similar manner as i have.”
I assume he means panels 1-3.
Except that lying is a sin someone consciously does while homosexuality is what someone is. So if homosexuality is something to be avoided like any other sin one would have to be lying or more specifically living a lie.
We’re all born into sin apparently, so assuming this is true, it’d still not make anyone worse than anyone else, really.
Babies who have literally done nothing in life are sinful. Great religion you got there.
Eh, but it’s part of being human. Sin is part of what we are, not really what we do. It’s part of the human condition, that’s all.
There’s no such thing as sin since there is no god. There are things we, as a culture and race, deemed not good, such as murder, because it made sense to outlaw something that killed us off. It just so happens that it was a really good idea so we kept that law around. Murdering people is bad.
Also, the idea that you’ve just put forth, that even newborn BABIES are “sinful” just…because…is really, truly disgusting.
The un-existence of God is just as non-falsifiable as the existence of God. The idea that people are born with sin is just one idea in many.
That being said, no scripture ever said that being attracted to the same gender as you were was a sin. What was deemed sin was the actual man-on-man or woman-on-woman intercourse, which was not really any greater sin than fornication or adultery.
Sin has always been an action, not a state. There is such a thing as HAVING sin, but that is another matter entirely.
But the burden of proof falls on the claimant when it comes to “X exists” claims.
One does not need to falsify the claim that there is an invisible dragon living in my garage in order to have a reasonable justification for not believing that that dragon exists. You do not need to justify not believing in things for which there is no strong objective evidence. On the other hand, if I actually believed I had an invisible dragon, the burden of proof would be on me to prove it.
And like the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And whether the idea of being “born with sin” is just one idea among many is irrelevant to whether it’s one of the more disgusting ideas.
Finally, yes, scriptures have said that being attracted to others can be a sin, even if it’s heterosexual, since the thought crime of “coveting” is considered a sin and “lust” is considered one of the “seven deadly sins” (for example, Matthew 5:27-28).
As stupid as Christians are, I don’t think they are considered sinful.
People who say their opinions as if they are facts tend to be considered obnoxious by religion standards. Don’t be that guy.
Um, every religious person I know -EVERY religious person I know- states their opinions as though they are facts.
You make it sound like they dislike a level playing field.
Ob.Caveat: not actually my religion.
In most sects of Christianity, there is an age of accountability — an age when it is presumed you are old enough to understand the Gospel and its message, and therefore can make the conscious decision to accept Jesus Christ into your heart and enter a state of grace.
Children below the age of accountability are born into Sin, yes. But (in most sects, not all) they get a Get out of Hell Free pass should they die before they reach that age.
So yes, babies are born into sin, but no, most Christians do not hold that they go straight to Hell should they die.
Homosexuality, biblically, is an action just like lying. It is not part of who someone is. Yes some people may be more prone to the sin, but that’s just like some people are more prone to lust, or lying, or stealing, while others may have virtually no temptation to do those things. They are still actions they can choose to do, or not do.
Exactly. Those with violent tendencies are expected to remain peaceful and control their anger. Likewise, those with homosexual tendencies are expected to remain chaste and control their urges. The only distinction the Church (or most other Christian organizations) draws between these two examples of sin is the practical one: one is near universally frowned upon and the other has a large scale social movement backing it up and encouraging it. Naturally, the latter will require more attention. The most unfortunate myth to arise from this culture clash is that Christians hate gays.
So the Church doesn’t “hate” gays, they just think what gay people do is equivalent to violence. You know, like stabbing or shooting or raping.
Yeah, I really think that should set off some bullshit alarms somewhere.
No, more like equivalent to pre-marital hanky-panky. Straight people can just as easily say, “it’s who I am–I’m a sexual being, why shouldn’t I beboning chicks before marriage?” And they do. And the Bible spends a whole helluva lot more time dealing with that particular issue (unfaithfulness) than it spends on homosexuality.
The question comes down to this–what is God worth? Is God worth giving up a lifestyle for? Because he thought I was worth giving up his life for. If he’s not worth it, then I can do without him, and go about my merry way. If he’s worth it, than I need to give up my attractions to his control.
Which I’ve been doing. I’m a girl and still attracted to women, but I’m marrying this straight dude I fell in love with. (January 5th!).
It’s been really interesting–and cool–how over time my attractions are changing. I really do have power over my own sexuality. The attractions I develop can change, and I can change them. And, with God’s help, anyone can. Yeah, it’s harsh, and probably offends everyone in the world, but Jesus is the guy who said “leave your father and mother” in comparison to your love for him.
Two things: First, God didn’t give up anything. If you can come back from the dead, then death doesn’t mean anything to you.
Second, if you love your future husband, are you really giving up anything any other person gives up by getting married?
Also, the Bible may spend a lot of time on adultery, but no one talks about an “adulterer agenda.” I don’t see whack jobs with signs saying “God Hates Adulterers”. Heck, that’s not even a website right now. No one ever seems worried about about their kids being taught by adulterers.
So sure, lots of time in the Bible is spent on adultery, but there’s not a big push to punish them the way they punish homosexuals.
You crate a false dichotomy when you ask what is God worth to us. Because there could be more than one god, and maybe they’re all fine with homosexuality. Maybe there isn’t any god. Maybe there’s an entirely different god, and it just doesn’t care about our sexuality at all. It’s above all that. A god capable of creating everything (assuming that’s what we’re talking about, it’d be hilarious if there were gods who were products of creation just like us) would like be so beyond us that it wouldn’t even bother to inspire us to write books about it.
The church can disapprove of homosexuality all it wants. It can be utter jackasses to them. The problem is that the church wants to use a secular government to deny rights to people they disapprove of, which is intrusive and a massive breech of personal freedom. That needs to stop.
One—this is funny.
Two—this manages to beat out pretty much everything, ever, in its ability to write a three-dimensional, traditionally-religious character.
Gracefully handled, Joyce.
Now the trick is, will it be Ethan’s lying or his gayness that becomes more important in the brewing shitstorm?
did he lie? i don’t recall him telling her that he wasn’t gay
I think the argument can be made that he’s lying by omission. He’s acting in a way that would cause a reasonable person to come to a false conclusion, he’s aware of the conclusion being drawn, and he’s not correcting the misconception.
Yeah, Billie, Billie’s right. Though you two should probably stop talking to mirrors to make decisions.
Except he’s not really obligated to inform people of his sexual orientation in everyday conversation. Hell, nobody is obligated to tell people of their sexual orientation just in casual conversation. That’d just get weird.
Anyway, my point is that Joyce has not asked him whether he likes women or men, and it’s not really wrong of him to give an answer for something that hasn’t been asked. I don’t really think he’s lying here.
It would seem to me Ethan’s aware that Joyce is attracted to him, if that’s so then this isn’t just everyday conversation.
He’s clearly aware that he’s leading her on. If he weren’t, it’d be none of her business. But he is.
I think the clear exception to that is any person that you’re going out with.
That person probably deserves to know whether your eyes are prone to wander to more targets than they’d expect. More importantly, I think a person really deserves to know if they’re not on the list, even though you’re going out with them. It isn’t right to waste someone’s time on a relationship built on a lie like that, even if it’s a lie of omission.
Yeah, I’m bi, and the only serious relationship I’ve been in I felt the need to come out before dating her (Which is why I came out in the first place). Someone you’re in a relationship with deserves to know that kind of thing.
Ah Mike. Never fails to know just exactly what buttons to push. Well done.
^ ^ v v B A ?
You forgot .
they go away cuz they are open closing themselves
Yeah, you are right. Realized that as soon as I saw my own comment. I really should have known better, I write html every goddamn day.
So, where does it say that homosexuality is a sin? Because sometimes I hear it doesn’t mention homosexuality at all (or that it does mention dude-on-dude once, but the line is interpretable, and it never mentions lesbians), and I’m way too lazy and atheistic to check.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, I believe.
It calls it an “Abomination”
Interestingly, you know what uses the same word in the same book? Eating Shellfish. These are equivalent apparently.
Not sure on the shellfish thing. It depends on which translation you’re using. Some tend to misuse certain words.
You’re right, there are certain words that have been bastardized in translation. For example, the word “abomination.” In the Hebrew scripture, the word used is תּוֹעֵבָה, or toevah. It basically meant, at the time, “taboo.” Homosexual sex was taboo. It was forbidden to the Jewish people but practiced by the people they were surrounded by. Just like eating shellfish.
Another interesting misinterpretation is of the word “virgin.” At the time, it meant “unmarried woman.” There were a lot of virgin births back then.
So you’re absolutely right. Some translations -do- tend to misuse certain words.
But I love shellfish, and I’m not gay. So, what am I? Should I be attracted to other men, because I’m not?
Yup. You gotta pick, eat one clam or the other.
It does but it’s usually short and far in between.
There are Jewish laws against them, laws that in a lot of cases are ignored (and many of which carry the death penalty).
There’s also a bit in Romans… But as I recall that’s actually Peter or Paul talking.
I’ve never seen evidence that Jesus ever said a single word about Homosexuality.
You’re right, he didn’t. Living in a society where gay men were in theory subject to the death penalty, and lesbians flogged, he didn’t say a word about homosexuality.
well aside from the obvious fact that he was a pretty chill dude, i imagine that he probably didn’t feel the need to. the main difference between jesus and pauls teachings (aside from the son of god bit) is that jesus mainly stuck with jews or people living around the jews, so aside from pointing out where they strayed from the teachings and laying down a few new rules he didn’t really feel the need to bring up the old working laws (or if he did it wasn’t bible worthy).
paul on the other hand was a missionary. he wandered about and talked to people far and wide. people who never heard of a messiah or only had vague knowlege of the jews so he spent far more time hashing out the laws to the so called “ignorant masses”
Of course, if you’re a Christian, “Paul’s teachings” that are in the Bible are scripture – the “inspired Word of God”. You don’t get to dismissthem simply because Paul happened to write them down.
The idea that God Himself wrote the words of what you call “the Bible” is a very recent one and not one that makes a lot of sense under closer scrutiny. It’s a collection of texts communities of Christians made canonical because they consider them to include the core parts of their faith. Those canons change and evolve over time (Jerome and Origen quote the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the Nazarenes extensively).
The Bible is dozens of books written in three different languages by people a millennium apart, and if you’re to base a religion on all of ‘em being equally divinely inspired it’s not exactly an easy row to hoe – passages of the OT mandate forgiveness and repayment, parts of the NT mandate pacifism and righteous violence, and the less said about Acts 10 and any passage of Leviticus the better.
To be frank, I’m not wholly sure why you’d read the Bible as the dictated-but-not-read small-w word of big-g God. Paul was a big, difficult, interesting, powerful man, but he never really considered himself God’s stenographer. Perhaps thinking of him that way is being a little unfair to him.
Where does this come from? The Bible itself attests to its own divine authorship in its own words. Over and over again. It is not a “very recent” idea. You may disagree with it, sure, but you can’t just say that it was something pulled out of a hat by contemporary Christians out of nowhere for no reason.
The New Testament attests to the divine authorship of the Tanakh. Revelation attests to its own divine inspiration. “The Bible” as we know it didn’t exist as it was being written, so it can’t attest to its own divine authorship as a whole.
“Pretty chill dude?” Does the phrase “cleansing of the temple” ring a bell?
And I dunno, if I spent a fair chunk of my time calling out Pharisaic BS, and saw a Pharisee overseeing the stoning of a gay man (or weaseling out through a legal loophole since they don’t want to admit they’ve outgrown such harsh laws), or flogging a “rebellious” woman who’d been eating at the Y, I just might put a word in.
a few instances of anger don’t make him an angry person. all the rest of the time hes all about peace and forgiveness and seemed to have a pretty firm “don’t start none won’t be none” policy
and he only called out the pharisees when he thought they were straying from the word of god and even then most of the time it was when they started to question him. so either he didn’t find the anti-gay isreal to be against the scriptures or he didn’t raise a big enough stink about it to get in the bible.
as for the stoning bit, i do recall a rather famous phrase along the lines of “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” so he was about not condemning people on earth and letting God sort out the proverbial wheat from the chaff, but that didn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t think homosexuality was a sin
You’re talking about the same guy who purportedly said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” (Luke 12:51) and, “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” (Matthew 10:35-36) Jesus instructed his followers to have swords, and to sell their clothes if they had to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Heck, Jesus is the guy who cursed a fig tree for not having any fruit! (Matthew 21:18-19 & Mark 11:12-14+20-21)
There are a number of other passages like those which one has to ignore to declare Jesus a “chill dude”. With selective reading, one can make Jesus out to be just about anything you want, from violent zealot to peaceful do-gooder. However, it’s more complicated than such simple descriptions.
Also, the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” bit comes from John 8:7. However, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and descriptions of John do not have John 7:53 and John 8:1-11, meaning the part you’re referring to was added later. Keep in mind that John is the last of the four gospels to be written (around 90-100 CE), which means that the passage you cite was written even later than that.
Finally, regarding the Old Testament laws, Jesus did say, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (…) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (…) For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, all of the Old Testament laws still apply. All of them. (Though he did go on to contradict himself on this point several times, such as Matthew 15:10-19, where he tosses out the food cleanliness laws.)
Forgot to note that the “Fulfillment of the Law” bits come from Matthew 5:17-20.
Leviticus, famously, but there’s considerable debate over what the passage originally meant and what it means by “abomination” – based on the other things Leviticus describes as “abominable,” it’s possible that it merely means “ritually unclean,” i.e. if you have gay sex, you can’t go to temple until you’re ritually clean. There are also interpretations of the verse that assert that the passage only applies to gay sex in the bed of a woman not married to either of the participants – it would have been seen as equivalent to actually having sex with the woman. It’s a very complicated verse, and Leviticus is a complicated book, which is why some Christians – including my congregation – more or less elect to disregard it.
The reason Leviticus 18 differs from the rest of the chapter is that, allegedly, these prohibitions were also one of seven laws handed down to Noah, and thus to which all humanity is subject. The Law of Moses is only for the Jews, and even then no longer to those Jews in Jesus’ new covenant. Read commentary on Acts 15:20 – what Paul is essentially saying is “just tell them to keep the seven laws to which all humanity is subject, of which these three they don’t seem totally up on.” (Good luck finding a Christian who even knows they’re not supposed to eat blood.)
It’s really not a very complicated verse. No one found it especially complicated for most of the history of Judaism and Christianity. It’s only nowadays that people try to stick a dusty old faith in a changed world.
My understanding of it was that it’s because it’s sex without the slightest possibility of procreation, and therefore entirely sex for pleasure. Which is Lust and probably Gluttony and who knows what else.
The way I was taught it (althought I’m not entirely positive about where or when), Christ’s earliest followers were literally expecting him to return and the world to end at any moment. One daren’t sin in the slightest way because who knew if you’d ever get a chance to get clean again before the world ended? So sex was right out for everybody, but as the years dragged on and his followers got older and there still wasn’t any sign of him, it seemed pretty obvious that they either had to have kids or find a bunch more people to convert, or they were going to run out of Christians pretty quick. So they started actively seeking converts (where before it had mostly been a small off-to-the-side sect of Judaism, and not really considered applicable to Gentiles), and they said, “Okay, fine, you can have sex– but only within a marriage and only for the purposes of procreation!” Hence the Catholics aversion to birth control; so long as they don’t use any, then technically they’re having horrible, distasteful sex for procreation purposes and not because, you know, sex. Sex isn’t supposed to be fun, after all. You’re supposed to lie back and think of England, get it over and done with, and then, no doubt, once you’ve got your 2.5 kids or what, breathe a sigh of relief that that’s over and done with.
But gay sex, whoa, there! You can’t have kids with a man and a man! Or even a woman and a woman (the science of the day already at least being up to recognizing that one of each was usually required, although they were off on the why)! Which means that, *gasp* gay sex is having sex just because it’s fun! Bad homosexuals! Baaaaad! Sure, we straight, married folks have sex too, but it’s not like we enjoy it! It’s our unpleasant duty and done only to ensure the continuance of the human race!
So from that point of view, who you’re attracted to is completely irrelevent, because in a culture of negotiated brides etc, even straight people married to each other may not actually be attracted to each other. And one certainly isn’t supposed to go around being attracted to people you’re not married to! And you aren’t supposed to enjoy sex. As recently as the Victorian times in the West (and up to the present day in some places), women could be forced to undergo clitorectomies, mainly for the purpose of removing their ability to enjoy sex. Because that’s just, like, grody. Sure, men get a kind of pleasure from it, but they have to. Not their fault.
Unless they’re gay and having gay sex for fun all over the place. I suspect that’s not only probably pretty close to why it’s a problem for Christianity (although I’m afraid I can’t cite anything offhand), it’s probably why (certain) Christians have such a particular problem with teh gayness. Somewhere, someone is having sex– for fun.
And it’s not them.
Which verse (psalm? bit? Sorry, it’s been a long while since Religious Ed) is it?
Props to everyone quoting scripture without resorting to the spotty translation/interpretation of Sodom and Gomorra. So many ways to interpret that passage.
Here’s a list of all of the Bible passages referring to homosexuality: Homosexuality in the Bible
Yea, one of the interpretations I ran across said it was referring to temple prostitution, not homosexual sex. You would have to get the original context to really know what they were referring too, but that is unlikely to happen now, 2000 years later.
Uh, that’s meant to go to Jabberwocky re: Leviticus 20:13.
Leviticus 18:22 is actually more relevant. 20:13 establishes it as a capital offense, but Leviticus 18 identifies it as part of the sin of Canaan. Remember, in the book of Numbers, when Moses has his troops slaughter captive women, boys, and old men, and in the book of Deuteronomy, where God gives the order to annihilate utterly the cities of the local tribes? The apologetic justification for this is that it was not a military tactic, which would have spared the women and children, but a mass execution for their crimes. So for a Gentile, even and especially a Christian, doing what they did is a hell of a lot more serious than just something that would get a Jew stoned.
I’d like to weigh in that the NT doesn’t condemn homosexuality in its original Greek. The Greek word that Paul used in Corinthians 6 was “arsenokoitai”, used elsewhere in Greek texts from the time to refer to pre-pubescent male prostitution. The Greeks had multiple words for homosexuality (most commonly “arrenomanes”) and he didn’t use them. The first Bible translation to put homosexuality in that verse was the Amplified Bible in 1958. (You can look all this up; it’s been well documented.)
Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but Romans 10 explains how his death effectively negates having to obey the dogma of the OT (which did condemn homosexuality). The only anti-gay messages to stay in Christianity have come from people who were anti-gay, and it’s sadly seeped into the tradition.
Joyce’s opinion is still totally in-character though; if she was brought up to simply obey the NIV Bible and never challenge or question it, of course she would genuinely think homosexuality was a sin.
You’re referring to Philo, who is clearly describing voluntary relationships, even lamenting the fact that such relationships in his day are more likely to be voluntary. He does describe the relationships as between “men” and “boys,” but it’s clear from his description of their beauty regimens that they’re not, or at least not all, pre-pubescent. Nothing is explicitly said about prostitution. There’s a mention of sacerdotal “men-women” in the service of Ceres (dishonest Christians will often quote this part alone; read lines 37-42 of Special Laws III, not 40-42), but this is clearly a subset of his ire.
The word is not used by contemporary Greek writers. Not one. The closest is LXX Leviticus, where the two parts of the word appear in close proximity in… guess which verses. The reason people cite Philo is because he refers to this prohibition, not, contrary to what some say, explicitly using the word himself (and you won’t believe what a pain in the ass it was to dig up the original Greek of that passage to verify this).
It’s clear from the Talmud that the Judaism of the time was not OK with homosexuality, including an unchallenged statement that same-sex marriage was the last straw before the deluge. One note in the Midrash goes so far as to suggest single men be prohibited from bunking (and husbandry), but it’s made clear this is a minority opinion.
“The first Bible translation to put homosexuality in that verse was the Amplified Bible in 1958″ – the word, maybe. But that’s a modern word, based in a 19th-century movement to pathologize and study homosexuality – 1958 is about when it would make its way into the Bible, whose translations tend toward antiquated language anyway. What do you think “abusers of themselves with mankind” meant?
I know Leviticus has its infamous condemnation of homosexuality, but which verse from the New Testament, exactly, explicitly condemns it?
IIRC, the New Testament doesn’t even contain the word homosexual, and any references to what we would consider homosexuality are usually lumped in with general sexual debauchery – that is to say, not worth the effort of differentiating from adultery and covetousness.
To say nothing of the fact that Jesus himself never spoke on the subject – it was always one of his apostles.
Just remember, Jesus HATES Figs. That tree disobeyed him for the last time…
Romans 1:26-7. And there’s no reason to think the “arsenokoites,” in those lists you mention, means anything other than “abusers of themselves with mankind,” as the KJV puts it, other than wishful thinking. The NAB translates it as “practicing homosexual,” and it’s quite likely it was about the closest word he could have used. It’s generally thought by serious scholars (self-deceiving apologists hoping to reconcile Christian and 21st-century values don’t count) that Paul’s caution against “porneia” in Acts 15:20 would be understood to include homosexuality by those of the time – the fact that it’s not clear to us is the fault of time, not vagueness on his part.
No, there’s nothing special about homosexuality as a sin (unless your surname happens to be “Phelps”). It’s just that our pesky secular values not only condone but celebrate erotic same-sex love, so it gets special attention.
You know what else those pesky secular values allow? Clothes made of more than one kind of fibre.
Oh, Deuteronomy 22:11, you just make my day every time.
Deutronomy is one thing. I prefer referencing the 10 Commandments. The LITERAL word of God, written in stone, saying not to take the Lord’s name in vain and not to work on the sabbath. MANY Christians violate those on a regular basis. But on the basis of 3 passages of questionable providence and translation, homosexuality is hated.
Again, Christians are not being hypocritical when they ignore the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses doesn’t apply. Homosexuality is forbidden not because it was forbidden in the Old Testament, but for the reason I just gave.
To call out hypocrisies and absurdities where there aren’t any distracts from the ones there are. A true claim will get lost in ten easily-refuted ones. (Consider Zeitgeist.)
So, the word of the apostles is no longer valid? I’ll have you know that none of the books were written by Jesus himself, if you’ll remember (and none of his apostles either, as they probably didn’t exist).
If you want the 3 verses and a good breakdown of the debate Google “Homosexuality in the New Testament” and click on the Wikipedia link that pops up.
I’d give a direct link, but posts with links to outside pages sometimes just vanish.
Here’s one example from the New Testament:
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
I linked to a page with others above.
It should be noted that male prostitutes and homosexuals were sometimes referred to as “dogs” in the Old and New Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:18 & Revelation 22:15), so don’t expect all references to explicitly use the word “homosexual”, even in translation.
In all honesty, I think Mike is trying to help them. If they go down this path, Joyce is just going to get hurt in the end. And Ethan needs to know that he’s leading her on. It’s best to try to break it off as soon as possible, as Joyce is still hurt from nearly being raped. She needs help.
And at this rate, MIKE is going to have to be the one to get her to get it.
And NONE of us want that.
Here is Mike, back when this situation began, telling Ethan he should have stayed in the closet and dated Amber: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2012/comic/book-2/02-choosing-my-religion/lincoln/
So I don’t have a lot of faith in his helpful nature, as opposed to his I-will-say-whatever-will-cause-trouble nature.
You hit the nail on the head every time.
For a nickle.
Now I’m wondering where Sierra’s gone. If she’s still within earshot, and hasn’t decided to quietly duck out this one, this could get ugly fast.
Why, is she a liar?
The opposite, I imagine – she’s truthful, as opposed to those who withhold the truth out of caginess or to sow chaos.
I love how Ethan’s face freezes between panel 3 and 4, except for looking even more strained and horrified.
“She said she lusts! I get to punch her!”
I am a Christian. The teachings of Christ are VERY clear on loving my neighbor – “‘Love your neighbor as yourself” and not judging – “Do not judge, or you too will be judged”.
I’ll quote Jesus on homosexuality:
It’s good to know that ancient Levite Jews had cultural codes that could be translated into “no homo” and that Saul the Pharisee, who never actually met Jesus and contradicted Jesus several times, said something that can be translated into how homosexuality is bad.
I don’t see how any of that has to do with love, or why what they think is so darn important to some Christians.
I’m pretty sure some just use religion to justify their own personal prejudices and would stick to it regardless of what the bible says.
I think your saying that Paul contradicts Jesus would get a Christian’s attention far quicker than your views of homosexuality.
Saul contradicts not only Jesus, but HIMSELF.
Jesus: And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Saul: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Jesus: Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, . . . `The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
Saul: Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Jesus: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.
Saul: For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Jesus: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.
Saul: …the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus: You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Saul: …just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Saul: …just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.
Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Saul: …as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jesus: Heaven and earth will pass away…
Saul: …The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is begotten from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. That which is begotten of the flesh is flesh, and that which is begotten of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be begotten from above.’
Saul: not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
There’s more, I just get tired of pointing it out.
I suppose it would have been too easy for you to provide verses. I don’t even know what translation you’re quoting, or if you’re quoting from just one translation. English Standard Version, it looks like? There is also a danger in pin pointing one or two verses without the context of the surrounding text. Nevertheless, I’ll try to answer these:
1. Figurative language.
2. Paul isn’t saying the time is at hand, as Jesus warned, only warning that it’s near.
3. Figurative language again. Jesus seems to be talking about how all who put their faith in him are alive, in the sense that they are assured eternal life in the future. Paul is talking about how even those who are currently dead are still assured eternal life.
4. This one stumped me for a bit, actually, but reading other sources on the topic suggests that there is no contradiction, due to the original Greek grammar.
5. Not a contradiction. Paul is talking about how he adapts his customs to be better get along with those he is evangelizing, which is not the same as disregarding God’s commands.
6. How, exactly, is this a contradiction?
7. Figurative language again. Jesus doesn’t say “the universe will be completely annihilated”. In fact, the renewal of the universe is in many ways comparable to the future resurrection of believers. We too will pass away, after all. Sides, heaven and earth isn’t the primary subject of what Jesus is talking about here.
8. Again, I don’t see any contradiction here.
Your insistence on calling Paul Saul is curious, I guess as part of your contempt for his Epistles?
I figure, if you’re going to argue with me on the subject, you ought to know well enough to figure out where in the Bible I am talking about.
1. Specious argument. He’s “figuratively” asking for people to give him an honorary title as a teacher. Which is “literally” what Jesus said not to do.
2. I’d be more willing to believe that interpretation if he also hadn’t said “For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When people say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape. But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief.”
So… he won’t be surprised by the day being at hand, because he is in the light, and warning that it is coming in the name of Jesus.
3. You happen to have read the story of Lazarus? And ever noticed how he spoke of those who are alive physically as being dead? Or how he mentions the dead AND those in their graves?
Paul simply does not see as Jesus. I’m not saying he went out of his way to contradict. This is a case of the blind leading the blind.
4. “There are two laws: love God, and love your neighbor.”
“There is one law: Love your neighbor.”
You can argue they’re one and the same. I wouldn’t fault you for that argument, but when Jesus says there are two laws and Saul says there are one, I defer to Jesus.
5. You’re welcome to believe that is what he means. Again, I’d buy that more if he hadn’t talked about “not in the way of eye service as men-pleasers” or “so we speak, not to please men”.
Seems like he’s contradicting himself. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is doing so, but if he is doing things to be exalted among men, then he is “an abomination in the sight of God”.
6. Jesus said “he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life”, not “he who hears my word, believes in him who sent me, and has grace MIGHT have eternal life.”
Grace has nothing to do with it.
7. Both are being figurative, here. It still doesn’t change that Jesus said “Heaven and earth will pass” and Saul said “The creation (The world, or the universe, depending on how you look at it) will be set free from decay.”
If you squint and tilt your head sideways, you can wrangle his words to mean “When things pass, they are set free from mortal constraints” but that’s not what he’s saying.
8. I don’t have to explain the difference between being descended from someone and being adopted by someone, do I?
I call him Saul because that’s his name. I call him the False Apostle because I have contempt for his claiming he speaks for Jesus in all things, and how he is a million times as humble as thou art.
Not everything he says is wrong. There’s plenty of wisdom to be gaimed from his writings. However, where it disagrees with the spirit or letter of the teachings of Jesus Christ, I am likewise forced to disagree.
“6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals”
What’s the point of having a faith when you’re just taking the parts you like and leaving the rest out?
“18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.”
Might as well toss the entire old testament because it doesn’t sound as nice and loving as the old one, eh?
What’s the point in “having a faith” when you treat the Bible as a book of rules instead of a book of inspirations? Faith bridges gaps, faith makes leaps, faith is in what you feel, not what you read.
But then, you are not a Christian are you? Or do you not want to be labeled anything at all? I’m more or less describing Christian apologists who want to meld the “good” book to our modern day values.
No, I’m a Christian. Christian minister mother, youth mentor in an anglican church, pray a lot, love God, know all the Bible stories, try to live my life like Jesus would, the works. I’m British, so I generally feel like ‘apologist’ describes most of my feelings about the world my ancestors managed to fuck up, and having grown up in the institution of the church I’d be the first to describe it as a nasty group of old men at times.
But most of all I’m an eezybreezy post-modernist who doesn’t believe everything she reads nor believes there’s a simple answer to everything. And I think that if God is reflected any way in this earth, then that’s true of God as well.
I realise writing a long and self-involved defence of myself in reply to a somewhat provoking comment comes across as incredibly reactionary, but your response suggested that you preferred stereotypes
They’re not stereotypes when I’ve been exposed to them for the larger part of my life. I’m filled with a lot of hatred for Christianity.
But I digress:
“A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Well, that is kind of sad for you. I was raised in and out of Bible colleges, theological universities and congregations and as such I’ve met nearly every type of Christian under the sun. Some are good people, some are not so good, some are very hard people to get along with, some are selfish, some are kind… but all are basically just ordinary, flawed humans.
But we’re all entitled to make our own judgement calls.
I will shut up now and get back to watching Community. Good evening!
The parts that are important to me are those that are in agreement with the spirit of the teachings of Christ. Like most other Christians, I ignore the lines telling me when to stone people to death. I also ignore the prohibitions on mixed fabric and being around women on their periods.
You know why? Because it’s a commandment of man that turns from the truth. Yes, I AM referencing Saul. The man said a lot of things: some were right along with Christ’s teachings; others were not so much.
Even though the bible itself says that all of it was inspired by god and even ends on the note that if you change it, you’re pretty screwed:
“18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
Why do you think that means anything but the missive he was writing? If anything, I’d say you’re adding to it, by treating this verse as if it applies to dozens of other documents as well.
Moreover, why do you choose that verse, when there’s a much better one in Deuteronomy 12:32 saying not to add or subtract from the commandments God gives, or perhaps Matthew 5:18 (“…not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law…”) or similar “red-letter” endorsements of the OT?
One thing: the word translated there to “passive homosexual partners” probably just does mean “effeminate” in the sense of cowardice or vanity.
Despite what Christians will tell you, though, “homosexuals” is an accurate translation.
When listing Jesus’ quotes on homosexuality you left out the part where he said that he did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, and in fact, came to earth to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17-20). If Jesus thinks that every letter of the law is important, then that includes the anti-homosexuality ones too.
IF fulfilling the law was better than having the law, why didnt he just do that right after the first sin? It just renders all of Jewish law, and human struggles through history up to that point utterly pointless (not to mention all the pointless animal cruelty in sacrifices if Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice). So much could have been avoided.
Oooh! Just when he thinks he’s safe Mike takes both of them back down to to the GROUND!
Actually, since it didn’t make the god’s Top Ten List of Things That Piss Me Off, I’d say that if you believe them to be divinely inspired, it means that homosexuality is significantly less bad than lying or, for example, not honoring your parents or taking the lord’s name in vain.
…which is funny, because I don’t see evangelicals getting their panties in a bunch over either of those.
To be fair, there is not a huge cultural shift in social mores condoning lying or disrespecting your parents (although looking at popular media, the latter is questionable).
As for “taking the Lord’s name in vain” they do indeed still get quite bent out of shape over it, to which I can personally attest from the times when familial obligations put me in a pew.
But you would agree, I assume, that you don’t see them campaigning for a “Defense of the Lord’s Name Act” or preventing equal rights for people who don’t share their beliefs on honoring their parents?
Life is short, and I feel sorry for people who waste any part of it worrying about what an invisible man in the sky thinks of two dudes or two women getting it on. That shit ain’t healthy.
Don’t tell me what you think, I’ll tell you what you think.
My understanding of Jesus, after extensive study of the Gospels–when it comes to matters of someone else’s physical needs, give lavishly and without question. When it comes to someone else’s spiritual life and morality, mind your own business. Jesus’s harshest words came against the Pharisees, not because they were immoral in their personal lives, but because they were sticking their noses in other people’s business.
I was so hoping we’d cut to the last panel and it’d just be Billie and Ruth making out.
LOOKS LIKE TOTAL NUKE-OUT!
I badly want panel 2 to have tiny little insets showing Joyce lusting, gossiping and coveting.
I got the sense we already saw her lusting in that comic where she called Becky in church…
Even though I’ve mentioned alot about being a Christian I’ll admit anytime talks of Homosexuality and how wrong it is came up my Gut got all twisty and I just felt really uncomfertable with that.
It just seemed so against the whole forgivness and not judging people thing to me.
Is it possible that Ethan is, rather than deliberately leading her on, doing the “trying to be straight” thing? He may still be wrestling with things at this point in his life. (Not to mention the possibility of being at least slightly bi, but I don’t get that vibe from him so far.) I’ve known quite a few guys who weren’t seeking a “beard” but who dated women.
I honestly find Joyce’s attitude in panel 2 refreshing, and wish more of my fellow Christians were of the same mindset.
I wish more Christians followed 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
The thing with quoting random passages is that they lack context. You’ve just given us a great example, thanks!
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.
You’ll find that, should you do some exegesis and delve into the Greek, that Paul was addressing the Thessalonians (thus the title ) about some general things, yes, but mostly specific issues that arose in their church. Quite a bit of the New Testament is composed of Paul’s letters to specific churches.
It doesn’t necessarily make the verse less Proverb-y in the sense of utility, but really, there’s so much cultural significance to the whole book that you miss out on when you read it in English and just accept it as-is. You miss out on a TON of information.
1 Thessalonians isn’t one of them, but I should point out that half of that “quite a bit of the New Testament” is composed of forged Paul letters to specific churches.
Younger Evangelicals are less likely to be full blown bigots, and our sweet little Joyce follows that trend.
I would have liked her better if she said, “It’s no worse than working on the Sabbath.”, a victimless crime.
Re: GPOY: Any chance she’ll mature into a liberal atheist who draws funny pictures for a living?
It’s important to keep in mind that the Bible was written by people, not God, so a lot of the cultural stuff in there results in what TV Tropes refers to as Values Dissonance when read today. It doesn’t make them bad, western culture’s movement towards non-discrimination has only really taken place in the last century, and the newest parts of the Bible are about two thousand years old.
And yes, the Bible is said to have come from God or words to that effect in order to assure worshipers that the theological content is indeed divinely correct, but other than the Ten Commandments there really are no direct dictations from God, so it’s better to cut the Bible some slack. Wacko believers that blindly hold firm to overly literal interpretations of the Bible, not so much. Contrary to popular belief, the mainstream of Christianity isn’t really like that these days.
Joyce here actually gives the impression of trying to do the right thing while overcoming an upbringing of overly literal interpretation.
Unless you’re saying that Jesus is a liar, every last word of the Bible was inspired by God working through men as vessels. So your claims make no sense. Also that bit about mainstream Christianity? Unless you count the Catholic church…. which has always been nothing more than a popular cult that doesn’t actually follow the Bible… that’s also just not true.
It was perhaps inspired by God, but it was written by men. And men, as we all know, are so very fallible. And these very fallible men have been translating and writing the books that go into the bible for centuries. If the Word is inspired by the Almighty, you’re still gonna have to parse through everything to try and weed out the biases and failings of mankind that also went into its creation.
It’s a shame God isn’t powerful enough to prevent those “failed” translations.
Thought just occurred to me: This isn’t just Joyce being reactionarily christian. I’m sure that’s part of it, but…
She just had a run in with a guy who tried to sexually assault her or worse, who used her conceptions of what a Good Man would look like to get close enough to harm her emotionally and physically.
I’m pretty sure he fits into her mental dictionary-definition of LIAR right now, so the vitriol-level of her response isn’t entirely unreasonable in that light.
Huh. You know, that’s a pretty good deduction there. Looking at it, I think there;s a good chance you’re correct.
I’m going to be sticking my head over the parapet with an unpopular opinion here, probably not a good idea for a new reader, but… does Joyce HAVE to be accepting of homosexuality?
She considers it a sin, yes – but we’re all sinful to some degree, and as she admits it here it doesn’t abrogate your existence. There are a lot of people around us with disgusting habits or who do things we don’t approve or consider to be a waste of time… but we do get on with life in the meantime, and it doesn’t prevent a civil conversation. “Tolerance” is good, but it shouldn’t be confused it with “approval”, otherwise you start enforcing thoughtcrime.
You lost me at the end there. The issue with Joyce being non-accepting of homosexuality is that it’s comparable with someone being non-accepting of blacks, or women. Do you have to be black? And you, can’t you at least try to stop being a woman? I’d like you much better if you didn’t menstruate, it creeps me out. You say you don’t have a choice? You should try harder, you unclean thing.
As the above indicates, there’s nothing at all wrong with disliking homosexuality. Bigotry is totally cool, seriously. However, one thing we ask in polite society is that you keep it to yourself. Sure, you have a right to think poorly of people for things that are perfectly natural and that they have little to no control over. It’s a free country. But people who open their mouths to express those opinions get looked at like they just took a dump in the punch bowl, unless surrounded by like-minded bigots.
All that said, I don’t expect Joyce to approve of homosexuality, and was frankly astonished by how accepting of it she seems to actually be. It’s almost like she doesn’t really buy into it being wrong but just notes that it’s illegal the way that smoking pot and driving without your seatbelt fastened are illegal. Which would be a staggeringly mature and socially upright perspective to have, given her upbringing.
So, please don’t spoil it.
Here is the thing. It is not comparable to hating blacks or women. Because blacks and women are people. Homosexuality is an act. I’m predisposed to have sex with women but because of feeling that extra-marital sex is morally wrong I’m still a virgin. Yes, some people are attracted to members of the same sex, but that is meaningless. They still choose to follow through.
I don’t hate gay people. I have a few gay friends, but they know I feel their actions are immoral. There is a world of difference between disagreeing with a person and hating them.
As for a deeper reason for being against homosexuality then that ridiculous, “sex can’t be fun” argument. Let me put it this way. First, for the purpose of this argument, let us assume that there is a Creator God. Now said Creator designed the world to work a certain way and within the first few concepts laid down there was, “male and female he created them.” Now a little while down the road the up-jumped self-righteous creation thinks it knows better and violates those early concepts. This is a profound rebellion. In said rebellion a subset of the creation decides to flip on its head that whole “male and female, he created them” thing. It becomes one of the most profound potential acts of rebellion. So there is my reason for being somewhat disgusted by the ACT of homosexuality. I feel it is a perversion of nature and the God I believe created it.
That said. I have gay friends and I believe my God loves them. Just not what they do.
You say you are a man who right now chooses not to have sex with a woman because you are not yet married, and this is equal to gay people never being able to have sex with a person they are attracted to ever in their lives.
Surely you see the huge flaw in this comparison.
So, if two homosexuals got married before they had sex, it would be ok, using your logic?
Also, following your reasoning, God created everything. That would mean God created homosexuals. So if he created them, why is it that homosexuals following their nature a sin? Also, in case you didn’t notice, homosexuality has been observed in virtually every species of mammals, as well as birds, something that exists in nature cannot be a perversion of nature.
So you’re saying it’s more comparable to hating Jews or Muslims, because after all, we choose our religions.
Did Joyce just admit to lusting?
It’s not her fault, she just really likes Sal’s motorcycle a lot.
In her defense lying just causes a huge mess that can take years to clean up. Even then things are usually not the same afterword.
WELP. Guess I’m not reading the comments today.
While not being a Christian myself, my mother has always believed in practicing her religion through treating everyone with tolerance and kindness. I’ve never asked her explicitly about her opinion on homosexuals, because I don’t really have to. When we found out my niece is gay, my mother made immediately made it clear that she was still family and would be loved and cherished equally as much as any other family member.
While not a Christian myself, I do admit to admire the Jesus Christ that my mother envisions to inspire her acceptance and generosity to others.
Wow, that entire thing is a time waiting to happen
NAME — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Who is the bad-assest?
©2010-2014 Dumbing of Age | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑