It just so happens that the ground they’re standing on is Joyce. Well knowing Willis this can only end well.
There is no possible way that this can get back to Joyce. NONE WHATSOEVER!
All she has to do is say the “Strap-On” line and a whole new line of shiit will start flying between roommates (he and he).
They just need to be in the midst of getting laid when Joyce walks in. That would help too. The first teen heart attack without other complicating matters except the shock of reality.
I like it. MAKE IT SO.
Knowing Joyce she’ll probably be too happy that she succeeded to care.
Joyce is the rock of the budding ‘relationship,’ for better or for worse.
Yea, there’s nothing like standing on someone else to make you laugh.
First the common ground, then a common table and a common bed… Then we get some more college hanky-panky!
Hopefully their common bed is Joyce too!
That looks a little too happy. Is :O different? I’m trying to convey shock with just a sprinkling of amusement.
I approve of this line of thinking.
Sarah Performs a Sex! And For a First Time We Get to See Jacob’s Peen and it’s Amazing.
The problem with that, is that it spells out SPAS. Way too close to Spaz. And spaz != sexy. Infact, when the the two ideas are put together, it can only end in tragedy…
Come to think of it, that’s right along with what Willis would do to us…
That, and ‘spaz’ rhymes with ‘Faz’, and …yeah, no.
And then Joyce comes into the room.
I feel like law is one of those professions that homeschooled Christians would avoid like the Biblical plagues…
Unless they want to be High Court Judges at least…
It’s a matter of practice. Talmud schools are about heeding the letter of the Torah and splitting hairs. That’s the tradition that much of the lawyering profession was rooted in. It probably was a bad idea in the Middle Ages to lock the chosen of all people into unpopular professions like moneylending and soliciting. Now the world is being run by capitalists and lawyers. Imagine what it would be like if they were confined to zookeeping and gardening instead. The lions would be resting with the lambs…
Is that where the Zionist conspiracies I sometime run across in youtube comments come from?
Well, that’s a little bit of where it comes from, yes. The majority of it, however, comes from the fact that if you dislike someone or someones (narrow as one person and as broad as basically any category of people you can imagine) you are generally more willing to believe bad things about them. To a degree this is normal and instinctive- it is a programmed response that probably prevented animals your monkey ancestors did not trust from stealing food or getting close enough to launch a surprise attack. But yeah, people like to ascribe shitty motives to each other on a knee jerk basis. And humans being imaginative creatures that we are tend to invent some truly elaborate and all too often completely nonsensical shit about each other. Thus, Jews rule the world and control the economy, because at some point someone noticed a larger number of Jews were bankers than other minorities and wanted a reason to bitch about it so they derailed their logic train and took a quick jaunt into crazy town.
This is also what fuels 99% of Obama conspiracy theories. That and con-men baiting the guillible crazies for their own fun and profit.
Well, you’ve just explained ALL conspiracy theories left-and-right wing.
With the exception of Joyce’s machinations, on the other hand, anything that can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence is automatically more likely than a Conspiracy…because Conspiracies take work, and most people are not only intellectually too lazy, they’re also physically too lazy.
Naw, people can actually do a lot of work when it comes to making money or furthering their career. What they can’t do is shut up about it. The truly hilarious and improbably thing about conspiracy theories is that they actually think that hundreds (or thousands, or tens of thousands) of people could secretly get together to do something amazing and then not a single one brags about it to a girl at a bar.
Why would you let a simple thing like HUMAN WEAKNESS get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory?!
I take it you have seen the SouthPark episode where they debunk the 9/11 “Truthers” because for that scenario to make sense the entire Bush administration had to be perfectly competent, and capable of keeping a secret. Provably wrong on both counts. I admit there is some stuff that does not make sense about 9/11 (like that third tower collapsing), but most of the tinfoil hat brigade destroys their own credibility long before they get to that.
Oh no!! Not another TL/DR!!
Why can’t you people stick to bad jokes and puns??
There are cause and effect and consequences in history. Many prejudices are not arbitrary. But still every human has the right to be judged on his or her own merit and actions. A large part of the general antisemitic sentiment in early 20th century Europe (it’s not like it was constrained to Germany) was that disproportionately large (in contrast to the overall population) parts of the judicial and financial sectors that were increasingly important were populated with jews, and that was to a large part due to centuries, even millennia of jews being constrained to those kinds of job, exactly because antisemitism did not consider them eligible for better renowned “honest” livelihoods.
Their main crime was being successful with the leftovers they were given. Even now, there is still enough correlation for prejudices to work with. And that is hardly surprising. But still everybody has the right to be judged on his own merit and actions.
`I feel like law is one of those professions that homeschooled Christians would avoid like the Biblical plagues…`
I dunno about homeschooled, but much of the West Baptist Church nutters are lawyers.
Which makes me question if they really are religious bigots, or just pretending to me for profit reasons.
they have their own hermetically sealed law schools, where they can debate just how subservient women should be required to be, how science discriminates against religion by using facts instead of Jesus. It’s turtles all the way down the rabbit hole. The graduates get great jobs and end up elected officials in Virginia and elsewhere.
not really… most of the Westboro babtips go to law school…
Baptists I mean
and yet surprisingly a large number of the westboro baptist church are lawyers.
Actually, many Christian Homeschoolers (at least the parents) are part of (or believe in some of the tenets of) the Quiverfull movement, which is a movement of Christian parents having oodles of children, raising them in Speech and Debate (aka forensics) and then sending them out to debate the world into submission. Law and Politics are usually the two most recommended jobs for those who compete in Debate.
Did I get “well, actually”ed?!
I was just remarking that I wouldn’t have pegged the Joyce type as a law school type. I mean, I fully expect Joyce to spontaneously decide to start drawing comics about an opposite-sex author avatar named… oh… “David Willis” and slowly but surely have her entire worldview change through drawing said comic.
But Joyce gave the impression that she’s going to college purely to meet “The Mr.”, so I figured if anything she’d be studying home economics. Or ponies.
AH, common ground. Always fun to rip on people you know.
*waits for crazies unaware of Willis’ upbringing and who didn’t read the FAQ to jump in, insulted*
My first thought as well.
I believe the hovertext is a reference to South Park and Scientology.
Yes but it is also handy for when you want to make sure your readers don’t assume that you’re exaggerating for comedic effect.
Which is weird because the first time I saw that episode, I thought they were using it to point out they were exaggerating for comedic effect. Then I used the Internet, because I was curious. Then I looked again, because maybe the first article was a joke article.
Then a few articles later, I had to conclude.
They weren’t joking.
Ideally the phrase “This is what (blanks) actually believe.” should only be used in the context of displaying exactly what they truly believe and not distorted in any way.
When you put in JOYCE BROWN instead of “Christians” (or any other religious category) it makes it appear that you are using the character’s name to avoid stereotyping, which implies you *are* exaggerating for comedic effect.
Or just that not all Christians are Joyce Browns.
I’m fairly confident that not all Christians are Joyce Browns. My reading has led me to believe that some of them aren’t even female!
“THIS IS WHAT (some) CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE” wouldn’t have the same ring to it.
Yes, duh, that was the point. Since you are exaggerating for comedic effect, you don’t want to pin your “claim” on all Christians, thus going with Joyce’s name instead.
No, the alt-text means literally what it says. Joyce does believe the things presented in it. There is no subtext.
Jesus Christ, you guys.
Hmm, Willis mentioned Jesus Christ! Clearly this means that he believes the Westboro Baptist Church are secretly Knights Templar!
Yay, they’re having fun together.
Are you suggesting that mideval knights DIDN’T hunt dinosaurs err dragons to extinction? MADNESS! =3
It just occurred to me that medieval knights finding old dinosaur bones and claiming they killed the creature, or a bard finding the bones and making up the story, is probably how we got the idea of dragons.
A quick wiki search shows dragons have been “around” since Ancient Greece. Theory could still stand though.
The Greeks believed elephant skulls (and probably mastadon skulls as well) were skulls from Cyclopes. Understandable, since their eye sockets aren’t easily discernible and there’s this huge freaking hold in the middle of the skull’s front…
This is what happens when you ban autopsies for religious reasons.
That’s not a bad theory, I wonder if there is any written manuscripts around from that time that could support this idea of yours.
We got dragons from people drawing Lizards, and then other people exaggerating the drawings of lizards, and so on, and so on. The fire breath even came from an increasingly exaggerated stylization of a forked tongue.
Sounds like the least complicated explanation. Makes sense.
They had that article in National Geographic, some years ago, about this little town on China with a shrine dedicated to a Dragon, and when they got talked into letting some scientist on the holly grounds…. it was a fabulous fosil of an ancient marine predator with loooong ribbed body and small arms and legs (vestigial bones in fins) in a stone wall!.
So… a dragon?
No, likely a Plesiosaur or a Mosasaur /nofunguy
The mountains of China are filthy with dinosaur fossils. A few old-school herbalists *still* sell them as dragon bones.
When they’re not using Shang dynasty oracle bones.
And then trades of Demon Knights found themselves in the Kansas educational system. XD
Look at Sarah go! She’s bonding!
Ionic or Covalent?
Her outer orbitals allow for s- and p-bonds to form.
Dammit! S- and p-orbitals create sigma and pi bonds. This is why I failed organic chemistry.
It’s the Handyman’s Secret Weapon.
and don’t forget the WD-40 to lubricate and penetrate.
“Yay, we’re bonding!”
I can’t help but feel this is a Mythology Gag.
And this becomes part of a tumblr rant from someone who misunderstands in 4… 3… 2…
What if… they misunderstand, as in, “Haha, look at this strip about atheists who think Noah’s Ark is a hoax but they believe in evolution! I bet they even believe that phony photo going around claiming sand under a microscope is actually tiny seashells! It takes all kinds!”
And intellectual inbreeding marches on.
Intellectual inbreeding is what happens when the only meeting of the minds you have is within your own small community.
I’m stealing that.
Awww. Not cool, Sarah.
*Looks at Gravatar*
You know you like it..
Let’s find common ground by “othering” someone else. Yay!
Of course, this is after “so… sports?” fell flat, so partial credit at least. :0
“When in doubt, rag on somebody out”
That’s the second time I’ve heard “othering” today. Odd.
Christians are totes in danger of being bothered in the USA, yepperoni.
I don’t think little sis expected to help break the ice this way. But hey, it works.
Sarah’s being a little rough here. Can’t blame her for needing to vent, but careful, Sarah. Don’t go too far or let it get back to Joyce!
Bonding over making fun of Joyce’s beliefs, ridiculous though they may be, strikes me as more than a little bit mean given how sincerely Joyce was working to try and help Sarah out, here.
Joyce is still helping Sarah out here!
Joyce is helpful even when she’s not physically present, now that’s a good wing girl!
And let us not forget they both actually like Joyce in their own way and would not hesitate to re-educate any who would hurt her.
It is like – My lil sis is an annoying ditz at times but I’ll go Full Metal Panic on anyone if they try and harm her.
You know, since you put it that way, I think I can accept their mockery of Joyce. Not that I agree with any of Joyce’s beliefs, but friends talking shit about other friends isn’t cool.
I bet Joyce would see movies like God’s Not Dead as Oscar-worthy wonderful. Fun fact: I found out about this movie because the trailer was in front of an indie LGBT remake of Pretty in Pink in which Duckie is a gay guy who also likes the male lead. Much laughs were had when the fundie-ness of the promo trailer appeared.
THAT movie sounds neat, but God’s Not Dead…UGHHH. I saw that trailer and y’know who’s in that movie?
Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain! Hercules and Superman themselves. I wept a little inside when I saw that. (Though Sorbo DOES rock a stately professor beard.)
Hey. C-list actors gotta eat. Kevin Sorbo was the guest of honor at Origins last year for some reason. Origins is a table top gaming convention, not a sci fi con.
What does that matter?
Origins is a gaming convention – scifi fantasy horror military card-crack. Name the nich and it will be there in some form or other as a game [non-electronic] computer games are limited to small start-ups.
I always thought of god as Schrödinger’s cat.
I thought God was Ceiling Cat.
You don’t know whether God is dead until you look into the box he has been locked in? That’s all very nice, but unless we can agree whether that box is labeled “soul” or “world”, we still don’t know where to look for truth.
That’s good… Better don’t open that box if god’s the least bit like a cat. Because if you lock a cat into a box, and he’s alive when you’ll open it, it’ll be bloody furious.
Maybe he’s not inside the box at all, which is why you gotta think outside the box.
I jut assumed that the answer was that the cat was a vampire.
I have a Facebook friend who’s obsessed with that movie. Utterly convinced it’s one of the greatest movies of our era. I don’t get it.
Well, I don’t get “I have a Facebook friend”. Sounds like a euphemism of what happened to the first crew member in “Alien” who got a “friend” booked right to his face.
In a way, Joyce IS helping Sarah get closer to Jacob. Maybe not that way she’d like but, well.
My God, Joyce really is getting them together. Joyce Brown, greatest wingwoman ever?
“My clever lies about a fictional fundamentalist upbringing have finally served their purpose! Now, off to unite other couples in needlessly convoluted ways! Wingwoman, away!”
She’s secretly a member of the Illuminati.
I wouldn’t even be mad. That would be amazing.
I just remembered she got Walky and Dorothy back together as well.
Not intentionally, though.
Well, yes, intentionally, but only for the purpose of having Dorothy dump Walky instead of the other way around. One of the few things I’ve genuinely disliked DoA!Joyce over.
Joe needs to start taking lessons from her.
Joyce is our author expy for Dumbing of Age, right? Is this conversation an example of something you had to deal with, Willis?
Bet she’s gonna feel reaaaaal guilty after this. *_*
Teaching Christianity to children is child abuse and should be outlawed.
That is not correct at all.
Man, what? I don’t think you know much about child abuse, guy. Or about the law. Or even just about being polite?
Uh-huh. Go put on your fedora and be euphoric elsewhere.
You mean trilby. Fedoras are the cool one.
Linkara wears a trilby, are you suggesting that he’s not cool?
Linkara’s cool because Linkara’s cool. A trilby can’t suck that cool away.
As a long time fedora wearer who is displeased at the bad rap they seem to have had lately for no realistic reason I can fathom, thank you.
They became fashionable among a subculture which tends to behave in a manner that many find despicable.
Both of those hats can be cool. Yu jist have to be able to pull it off.
Unless its the 1940s and you’re Indiana Jones, hats are not cool. Present days people are incapable of pulling them off without looking like douchebags
Lies! Some people are Dina!
Nope, sorry, no exceptions
I like my Tilley hat thank you very much. Mind you I seem to only wear it in inclement or very sunny weather.
I usually just wear a peaked cap (or a baseball cap in america) pretty much all day every day.
So hush hats will always be cool.
I was refering to hipster hats like fedoras or trilbys. I’ve yet to see a single person wear these without being a hipster or a deluded basement dweller who thinks it makes him look sophisticated or badass, rather than just desperate.
Stranger – I inherited a fedora from my great grandfather, and fell in love with hats because wearing it made me feel closer to the man that I never had a chance to know. He made everything today possible for my family because of how great he was back in the day. This is why I love and wear fedoras and other hats.
I am sure many of the other people you so happysnarky judge have similar reasons. But just keep on assuming the worst crap about them and putting everyone else below you, that is much easier. Damn, you are so cool…
Fedoras are also tainted, not just trilbies.
Many christians believe that teaching atheism is the same thing, so that issue won’t be solved anytime soon.
And therein lies the reason some forms of Christianity (and other religions which are anti-science–I’m looking at you, Sufi Muslims) are so poisonous. Calling into doubt verifiable science that has a 150+ year record of both withstanding challenge and predictive success, all because it contradicts fairy tales written by bronze age nomads and canonized by iron age priests.
Evolution is approximately the same age as the “germ theory” of communicative disease, and at least as successful as a scientific theory.
The stuff the Joyce Browns of the world believe shouldn’t be mistaken for Christianity.
They believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and son of God who came to earth to sacrifice himself to absolve mankind of the stain of original sin, who adhere strictly to the teachings of scripture and the words of Christ himself. That sounds pretty Christian to me.
They may be “doing it wrong” in your eyes, but that doesn’t make them not Christian, at least by definition.
The point would be that not ALL Christians, or I’ll wager even the majority, believe in things such as Dinosaurs and humans co-existing at the same time or that scientific ideas like evolution are mutually exclusive ideas from what a good Christian believes.
Yes, but the people that do are still Christians, and what they believe is “Christianity” of a sort.
I am aware that John’s actual point is “not all Christians are like that”, but it’s an important distinction to make, I think.
Why? I don’t see the need to attach whatever J-random thing some tiny group of people have interpreted to the whole of the group. Birthers have filed law suits against president Obama about his birth certificate. That doesn’t make them “lawyers of a sort”. Some folks who earned their degrees sixty years ago will vehemently tell you that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured with proper treatment. That doesn’t make this “psychology of a sort”. Some folks still believe in Eugenics. That doesn’t make it “science of a sort”. So why does looking in the Bible and thinking it talks about dinosaurs become “Christianity of a sort”? My personal opinion: it either implies a level of legitimacy it doesn’t deserve, or wants to implicate a broader depth of ignorance than is actually true.
Because being Christian requires one thing in particular, that you belive that Jesus was born, died for our sins and the path to salvation is throug him. That there’s another whole ton of bullshit that divides every splinter group of the religion is another matter entirely, but being christian is by definition just about beliving in Jesus.
I’m not attaching anything to the entire group. If I point out that the Nazis were all mammals, does that imply that all mammals are Nazis? No. But the Nazis were -still- mammals.
(Yeah, yeah, Godwin’s rule. I’m no trying to be inflammatory, though, I’m just trying to illustrate the logic here.)
Also, the lawyers hired to file the suit -are- still lawyers, they’re just unscrupulous ones, believing something crazy doesn’t mean that a psychologist stops being a psychologist, and the reason Eugenics isn’t a science isn’t because it’s abominable, it’s because it’s not a rigorously tested endeavor to gather knowledge through testing hypotheses. If it -was-, it would be a science, it would just be a horrible one that can’t be ethically sanctioned.
I was raised in the largest Protestant denomination in the United States and that is PRECISELY what we were taught in Sunday School about evolution. If you think Southern Baptists are a fringe pseudo-Christian sect then there are 30+ million of them that would be happy to argue otherwise.
Thank Darwin that I learned not to trust the scientific teaching of Chick tracts in college. I hope, but not pray, that one day Joyce gets her grown-up “Santa Claus” moment just like I did.
And note that that definition of Christianity does not include “belief that a 600-year old man literally put two of every single kind of animal ever onto a big boat because God completely covered the entire planet in water”. The people who believe in the literal account of the Flood are Christians, but that belief is not Christianity. Some Christians believe in it, but most don’t, and they’re not less Christians for that. When you’re labeling entire belief systems “child abuse”, that’s an important distinction to make.
Some of the beliefs that some Christians subscribe to probably qualify as child abuse. (Though I’m wary of going too far down that slippery slope.) But Christianity – the complex of beliefs that form the sine qua non of being a Christian, and even the associated beliefs of mainstream Christians – is mostly harmless.
(And I should probably also mention that I’m not a Christian of any description. I’m agnostic-atheist.)
I agree with all of this. The problem, I think, on both sides of this are generalizations. The OP’s generalization of “Christianity” as being intrinsically abusive and then subsequent generalizations of “child abuse” as only being extreme Blaine-style physical and emotional torment.
Christianity = belief in Christ as God, or son of God, or one-third of a Triune God. Thus Fundamentalists fit the definition just as much as do Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Holy Rollers.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read.
Honestly, what bothers me about this is not that you are saying something terribly rude about my religion. Or that your opinion is comedically uninformed. It’s that you are so, so… something… that you believe bringing up a children in a world-view opposite yours is actually anywhere within the same league as child abuse.
Tell you what slugger. You go find an actual victim of child abuse. Like, a real ass survivor of child abuse. You say to them what you just typed into this forum. Tell them that what they experienced, that what they are probably still dealing with to this day, is on the same level as being raised Methodist. See how long it takes them to educate you on all of the absolutely horrible ways in which you are wrong. They may or may not use a blunt instrument in this endeavor. They may or may not be justified in this usage.
Although it sounds healthy for him, I kind of doubt he’ll follow through on this. I’m gonna be real with you here: you’re not making the situation sound all that appealing for him, what with the savage beatings and all. Catch more flies with honey, and all that jazz.
Type “all” a few more times next time, myself.
To be fair to Rideryu, although I think his statement was too strong anyway, not all forms of child abuse are equivalent, and he didn’t, say, make a comment that “raising a child in christianity is as bad as beating them with a stick for being disobedient.” Also, the nature of your upbringing is part of it too. -Your- upbringing, for example, was probably considerably less fundamentalist than, say Joyce’s. And Joyce’s upbringing has absolutely stunted her ability to function and understand the actual world. I’ve met plenty of people who were raised in heavily christian homes who were traumatized by the nature of their upbringing.
There are people in this country -right- -now- who are teaching their children that handling venomous snakes is perfectly safe for them as long as they have sufficient faith in God. There are people who don’t treat their children’s illnesses because they believe in faith healing. And as Joyce/Willis attest, there are parents who teach their children that their close friends will burn in hell forever for being nothing other than that which they were born as, and that demonstrable facts need to be disregarded if they conflict with scripture. I would say that is at least harmful, if not outright abusive
I am wondering what you are considering “real child abuse.” Telling some survivors their abuse wasn’t “real” seems to me to be an equal opportunity for justified rage!
My apologies if I offended. My point was not that any form of child abuse is not “real”. It’s that taking something relatively mundane and calling it “child abuse” cheapens the phrase and… dishonors (?) child abuse survivors. There’s a difference between saying “telling kids that they need to handle venomous snakes to prove their fidelity to God is child abuse” and saying “Raising kids in a Christian context is child abuse.” One is an example of a specific behavior that is harmful to children. One is a sweeping generalization that, by nature of its broad scope and huge sample size, is going to contain a lot of benign, neutral, or non-abusive negatives that should not be elevated to the level of “child abuse”
I’m really struggling to find the words to express my point, so I hope you can be charitable to me on this. My point was not that any person’s abuse, from a Christian perspective or otherwise, was not real. I am not so deluded as to believe that there are not Christians who abuse their children with, through, or because of their beliefs. I sincerely apologize.
I realize this wasn’t directed at me, but since you used my example, I just wanted to clarify that I don’t agree with Ridureyu’s initial statement (Which I think is way too general) but I do need to point out that beating your kid used to be “relatively mundane”. I think we owe it to ourselves and our kids to constantly evaluate what teachings and behaviors are helping or hindering them, and to adjust our ideas of abuse accordingly.
Speaking as a survivor of child abuse… I would say that raising a child on the basis that your unprovable opinion is fact, and that if they have any other opinion that conflicts with yours they are bad and evil and will be going to a horrible place to burn and be a bitter disappointment forever, well… Yeah, I would call that a form of psychological abuse.
There are, of course, more extreme forms of child abuse, but I would say that teaching your child that your worldview is the only valid one, and that you will at best be very disappointed in them if they disagree- it doesn’t matter if it’s religion, politics, lifestyle or anything else, it is actively discouraging a child from becoming a balanced person who can think for themselves, which is a form of abuse in my opinion.
I absolutely do not think that teaching a child about faith is a bad thing, even teaching them your own faith as being important to you, as long as you also teach them to walk their own path and that you will love them always.
But hey, I spent my entire youth being taught that my thoughts, feelings, opinions and experiences were worthless. Religion wasn’t much of a factor (my parents belittling my attempts to explore faith were relatively insignificant), but I can see how a well-meaning religious upbringing could very easily fall into the same patterns I experienced. Regardless, that’s my take on a VERY touchy subject, so you are free to disagree.
. . . Can I hug you?
Sure, but you’d have to get past my rabbits first. They want treats and fussing and are weapons of mass distraction.
Jason, you are amazing. You also speak well and say powerful things. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here.
That’s a lovely thing to hear, thank you! Living through what I have has given me a unique perspective and, while I obviously wouldn’t have chosen my life, I am thankful for the way it taught me to think. I’m happy to hear that you thought so highly of my words.
When reality finally caught up with me after a lifetime of the teachings of my church, it felt like I had survived some sort of brainwashing. So maybe you have a point. But I think there is an aspect of intent to be considered. And my parent’s intent was always loving. The were strict, and they wanted me to fear hellfire, but not anymore than they feared it themselves.
Mostly, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I just rue all the wasted time.
I’ve never considered my mis-education at the hands of my Southern Baptist parents and church community to be actual “Child Abuse”, but maybe I should.
I did believe almost everything Joyce claims to believe for almost the entirety of my first 20 years of life. What a complete fucking waste of time.
Well, I was raised Methodist (loosely), and my almost-wife is a “real-ass survivor” of some pretty horrific dialed-up-to-eleven child abuse, and we both agree that equating the two would be an act of profound imbecility, so there’s that.
Except nobody equated anything.
In the original declarative sentence above, the word “is” is used as a simile, making it semantically the word “equals.” So yeah, it was.
He didn’t even say “akin to” or “approaches,” he said “is.”
He said it was -child abuse-. Not all child abuse is the same thing.
Telling your kid they’re a disappointment is child abuse. Telling your kid they’re a shit-stain on the world that never should have been born is also child abuse. That doesn’t mean they’re -equal-.
Being called a f*cking f*ck up who never doe anything but f*ck the f*ck up all the f*cking time when you’re 5, then getting a whooping with a stick for missing one leaf when you sweep the porch, in the middle of fall is child abuse. Being raised christian, while an ignorant viewpoint, is not BY ITSELF child abuse. The thing with the snake handling, is probably child abuse, as they are most likely not being taught proper snake handling techniques. Also, if you hold a snake right behnd its head, and squeeze very lightly, it cannot bite you.
*does, not doe.
The point of the snake handling is that you don’t have to worry about being bitten, because god will protect you, so yeah, they almost certainly -aren’t- handling them properly.
Also, we’re definitely agreed that what you describe is child abuse, but I assume we would also agree that child abuse can be much more subtle and less severe than that as well. My point is just that saying “X is child abuse” is not the same thing as saying “X is equivalent to Y person’s experience with child abuse”. Although I disagree with what he said, Ridureyu didn’t claim that being raised christian was equivalent to anyone’s experience with child abuse.
As for whether it -is- child abuse, I’d say it depends. I personally think raising a child to value faith over reason is definitely harmful. I think telling a child that they -are- Christian, rather than letting them get old enough to decide for themselves is harmful. I think teaching a child that they are a guilty sinner who will burn in hell if they don’t beg forgiveness from the entity that created them is harmful. Whether those things constitute abuse is a very difficult subject to approach. It certainly -can- be, depending on how it’s handled, but is intrinsically abusive?
Someone said “semantically,” so I get to be a linguist!
“Is” can oftentimes be more accurately modeled as “belongs to the set of,” rather than as a logical “equals.”
Now you know!
No. Although it can be (and is) used as justification for child abuse.
Please know that not all atheists are like this ass. While I find your beliefs entirely silly (as I do those of my friends who believe in Asatru, Wicca, Marxism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism and Homeopathy), I believe that you all should be left to them, as long as you understand that the dictates of your God have no relevance to MY life, and you leave me and other folks in peace.
I do have to say as a science educator, though, I get incredibly frustrated by students who have had their minds systematically closed off to reason and science by faith-based parenting. I might argue that if you’re doing -that- to your kids, that’s abusive, and that’s what’s been done to Joyce.
Well, somebody’s got to dig the ditches. Might as well be the people you can get to do it by telling them that God wants them to.
But seriously, that’s why you’ve got to make then watch/read “Cosmos” and stuff. Break the brainwashing!
So true. It’s really tiring to hear stuff like “Oh, but the dinosaur bones were put there by god to test our belief! He created them old!”
Personally, I say that if God went to such lengths to make it look like the universe is 14 billion years old, and all life on Earth evolved from more primitive forms, who am I to call Him a liar?
Oh, that’s a good one. I often forget the judo elements in the jiu-jitsu of rethorics.
“Their” children *are “other folks”*. “Child abuse” was a bad choice of words because it allows the easy rhetorical counter where you drum up outrage over how bad the usual members of that category are, but for the love of god and the principle of charity, make a baseline attempt to think about what Ridureyu actually meant, everyone!
Maybe find a different place to comment? We try to be open minded in this comment section.
Wow, I’m so glad to know that my mum abused me as a child, instead of giving me a tool to remind myself about things like compassion, patience, and generosity and a community that would give me a safe space and a slew of role models. Little did I know as I helped out at our church soup kitchen or learned about our church’s history (including stuff about female and queer role models within said church, which I was incredibly grateful for as a teen) that I was doing damage to myself by considering this flagrant abuse a positive thing.
I have certainly learned something today!
Wait, isn’t that what a conscience is used for? If you need a church to remind you about compassion and patience, isn’t it severely crippled? Religion dictating a morale is not a tool, it’s a crutch, a bad replacement for real decisions guided by compassion.
What I’m saying is that you can be a good person without being threatened by hellfires. And, what makes it worse, a decision based on fear is never true. If the only reason some decision is bad is that a god doesn’t like it, what happens to that morale when that belief crumbles? I make the decisions i make because they are right, not because someone threatens me with eternal torment.
My (moderately abusive) parents tried to raise me as christian, but I could see the madness it instilled into them, even as a child. They didn’t (and still don’t) see forgiveness from people as important, as long as god forgives them. Is that compassionate to you?
I have seen compassionate christians, but their parents had been very nice people too. I figured that it was their example, not the religion, that made them good people.
A half-assed, negative religuous education from people without social skill is not only abusive to the educated, but to his/her children and fellow people as well.
Why are you assuming there’s any threat of hellfire or divine punishment implied in that statement?
Many religions and religious people place importance on things like compassion at a very intrinsic level. You’re not doing it because of reward or punishment, but because kindness is inherently holy. That there are institutions and practices that help people bring more kindness into the world is unquestionably a good thing, even if the way that’s achieved relies on impossible metaphor and faith. It’s necessary to an extent even, because there’s a lot of evidence that compassion, patience, tolerance, etc, are skills. Having a formal practice really helps to cultivate skills, and those traditions and practices really help to achieve that.
That literalism, dogma, xenophobia and fanaticism often come along with that is something to be fought, and especially from inside those institutions.
Also, you suggest that in the case of compassionate christians, it’s the people, not the religion, but that works the other way too. People who hate use religion to justify their hate, but the religion isn’t the source. It starts in people and is allowed to thrive, or is killed, by acceptance or lack thereof in the social groups that those people are part of.
The threat of hellfires as opposed to salvation is a basic part of most religions. Some are less martial, saying that you’ll reap what you sow through some kind of universal balance. That’s still a threat of punishment.
There are religuous interpretations that value kindness as holy, trying to spread it without the punishment/reward mechanics (which are at least okay to make unkind people at least act kindly), but that classification of holyness is just another type of reward offering.
I completely agree on your last two paragraphs. However, the “god forgives everything” mentality is a perfect enabler to do shitty things. It allows to abandon all responsibility for the deeds one does, and that is unquestionably a bad thing.
I think you have somehow missed the point of my comment entirely.
I never said you couldn’t be a good person without being the sort of Christian threatened with the fires of hell. In my church, being good to someone was about being a good person, about loving your neighbor and being close to God through kindness. I’m sure (potentially minus the God part), other kids of different faiths (or brought up agnostic or atheist) learned those same lessons in their own ways. Certainly no one has a monopoly on compassion or cruelty.
“A half-assed, negative religuous education from people without social skill is not only abusive to the educated, but to his/her children and fellow people as well.”
I definitely don’t disagree with this. I have never attempted to claim that religion can’t be abusive.
My point was that painting the entire range of churches that make up Christianity at large with the same brush is to be wrong and to erase the identities and experiences of many different people. Just because my middle school experiences were awful and included teachers fired and arrested for good reason doesn’t in any way mean that all public schools are by definition horrific institutions out to ensure one needs therapy all the way through early adulthood.
So yes, my experiences with the church taught me things like how to go about volunteer work that could make a positive impact on the local community; how no matter what some societal messages about women and queer people said, I was a loved and cherished individual and so, too, were my friends; methods to help with overwhelming emotions like anger, anxiety, and crushing depression by getting one through each moment; and so on and so forth. Does that mean that there aren’t other methods and institutions out there that could have (and, indeed, have) helped me with all the things I first got through the church? No, dude, of course not. Cognitive behavioral therapy, secular volunteer work, friends of different faiths (or none at all), hobby and help groups on the internet, various projects and outreach programs – all of have been great contributors to my overall happiness and health as a person and to becoming the kind of person I’d like to be.
As for your first paragraph, two things: First, there is nothing wrong with using a crutch, and as a twenty-something who will need a cane off and on for the rest of her adult life, I’m grateful for medicine and tools that will help me have something approaching the mobility of my late teens. That is and will always be a terrible metaphor, because a crutch, whether temporary to allow someone to heal or permanent to allow them to move around, will always be a good thing. Second, I said “a tool.” As in one of many things you can sometimes find use of to help you accomplish your desires and goals. Not every tool is right for every person or every situation. But I know that the ones my mother and early pastors provided worked for me. Maybe another person would count to ten instead of repeating quietly to themselves a psalm or a snippet of prayer, or some other tool they found useful. That’s okay. People should use what works for them.
Teal deer: please don’t erase the positive experiences of queer Christians whose first safe spaces actually were their religious institutions. It’s very frustrating.
I guess I did at least misunderstand your comment partially, paying more attention to an implied side statement than the core of what you wanted to say.
I don’t doubt that the display of kindness shown in some churches is a good example to others, and is also giving the members a place where they get the support they need. Religion is definitely not all bad, just as it’s not all good. It always depends on what people make of it.
Using a mental crutch is indeed fine. As long as you need it. It will help you walk. But will it help you run? No. For that, you would need to learn how to walk by yourself, only then do you have the stability to learn how to run. You need to become independent of the crutch if you want to achieve that. That doesn’t imply discarding it, just the will to stand on your own feet as much as possible. I’m sure you understand what I mean, since you don’t just give up and use a wheelchair, but go through all means to walk by yourself as much as you can.
Some people don’t get the chance to develop an independent sense for right and wrong for whatever reasons, and those are fine to rely on their mental crutches forever. If one has the chance to make their own decisions, they should take it. But for that, all the pre-processed values provided by others have to be questioned and replaced by values one has found to be true themselves. Even if the outcome seems to be similar, the fact that it has been achieved through contemplation and not just mimikry gives those values more substance and durability.
No. It isn’t. And I’m no friend of Christianity, I’m just not so blatantly unethical as to pretend raising kids in a religion is abuse.
Me either, and me either.
Considering Ridureyu has not defended himself in the entire day this comment thread was in the fore, I think he (or she) either a) is to much of coward to admit his mistake (I know the feeling) or b) posted it to see how long the thread would get. And boy is it a long un! Almost every one here put in there two cents, including the author, we learned many things about the morals and ethics of the audience, as well as the diversity of upbringing, and that at least one commentor has had Horrible, Horrible Things done to him. Amazing what a backhanded, insulting and unfeeling comment can do in the space of twenty-four hours. The question remains: is this real life Mike, or just a troll?
If he’s trolling, he did rather well, picking a statement that is neither completely true nor completely false.
However, there’s still possibility c). He could have made bad experiences discussing with fanatic fundamentals and how it’s impossible to discuss with them when your preferred method of building an argument is logic. So he ignores the whole discussion because he doesn’t expect partaking to make any sense. That would make him not a coward, but a person that learned not to waste his time and nerves. If so, he judged the community here wrong, because it is open to logic and other peoples views.
Then there’s possibility d), that somebody else already said what he wanted to say in his defense, possibilty e), that he’s simply not on his computer all day and didn’t see the discussion, possibility f), that he feels antagonized and doesn’t want to argue with people that think he’s an unfeeling coward…
Dang, I don’t think I’ll run out of possibilities before I run out of letters. But I think the point got through. ;P
You’re a good person.
Sarah is kind of being a dick. While in real life she’d probably forget about it and maybe feel bad later, in Dumbing of Age, being a dick for one picosecond means that she’s going to drown in drama before the story arc ends.
The waves of the narrative are receding. She should get to high ground immediately.
If only we had some kind of giant boat we could load all of our livestock and family onto to escape.
Count — you’re right. This is where DoA and Charles Dickens novels meet up: at the “inevitability of the drama” space. I think the Drama Tag may have been handed down to Willis directly from Dickens himself.
Comparing Willis to Dickens…
That’s the worst insult to Willis I’ve ever seen.
Durr hurr, dicks and willies. *am five*
I think this metaphor implies that Mike walks on water.
No, he just knows where the rocks that hide just beneath the surface are.
I don’t foresee this ending well, but let’s all enjoy this moment of bonding.
*plays “It Ain’t Necessarily So” from PORGY AND BESS on the Muzak*
“… the things that you’re liable
to get told in the Bible,
it ain’t necessarily so.”
Does Jacob know that Ethan is gay or will Sarah blurt that fact out?
Pretty sure Jacob does not know.
That could be…interesting.
Joyce and Ethan have already indicated to her they don’t want Jacob to know. Sarah’s all about low drama lifestyle so deliberately creating relationship and roommate drama would eb out of character.
Ethan and Joyce don’t think he knows, and have warned Sarah off blurting it out once already. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jacob hasn’t figured it out himself. Ethan has not done well at hiding his gaiety from anyone that he’s not dating.
Not so much told her, more like gestured but yes that more or less answers my question
Naw, she’ll just blurt out that Ethan’s probably taking steroids
Uh oh. This is going to bite Sarah back in the bum, isn’t it?
Off topic here, but did Mike out Ethan to Billie and Sal a few weeks back (when he made the strap-on joke)?
Is Sarah going to bite Jacob in the bum?
I am in favor of this.
Straight people also enjoy strap-ons.
WOW, I learnt something new about you today Willis.
among other things.
Ah, right. Silly, naive me.
I’m reminded of Me, myself, and Irene where Jim Carey discovers his other personality had sex with his lady love interest, and when he asks her about why there’s a dildo on the ground she says he used it on himself.
Yeah, it’s not like erogenous zones are specific to a person’s sexuality. Everyone has the same, it’s up to you how you stimulate them.
yeah, it’s not about *what* you like having done to you, it’s about *who* you want to be doing it. so to speak.
I am sure they already know
Aww, poor Joyce.
I mean, some of her views are, um, ridiculous… But she at least makes an attempt to not be terrible!
And Joyce is like “well fudge you guy two.” >:-(
joyce “Well that’s allot of fudge talkin you cheese bags”
I’m now curious whether she would use “dillweed” as an insult.
I’m glad that they found common ground, but I do not really like the ground that they both found common.
+1 for that observation.
Get away from the ground!
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
THE GROUND IS LAVA
So were you brought up told that people hunted dinos to extinction Willis, or was it something you inferred?
I know from my former religious background that the mainstream SDAs didn’t teach that idea, but some of the fringe SDAs do support the humans killed off the dinos theory.
I had a book that specifically claimed it! Dinosaurs were put on the Ark, OBVIOUSLY, because they were included in the “two of every kind of creature,” but the lack of food following the Flood weakened them and humans finished them off subsequently.
I believed this.
Ohhhhh man. Was it Dinosaurs by Design? I used to LOVE that book! I want to own it again as a sort of show and tell (“Look! I’m not making this up! I really truly was taught this…”) but I feel conflicted about spending money on it.
(and others, but this was my favorite)
This was mine. Helpfully included in the “also bought with” suggestions for yours. I loved this one because it also had bits about dinosaurs from mythology, and things about the Loch Ness Monster and a “possible dinosaur sighting” in the Great American Desert in the 1800s. And a bit I loved about the Epic of Gilgamesh and how the Noah story has great similarities with an episode from that myth cycle (true, actually, but less evidence that it really happened and more evidence that Semitic peoples shared elements of mythology with each other).
When you mention Duane Gish, you should always use his full title: “That fucking liar Duane Gish.” Google his name and “bullfrog proteins” for an example.
Oh yes. Not sure if he’s actively lying or just being intellectually dishonest? I guess they’re kind of variants of the same thing, but I think there is still distinction to be made there. Either way, he’s full of shit. Pretty good storyteller though.
I guess it makes sense that if there were only two of each animal left, you would end up with a lot of extinctions – basically every time a predator needed to eat.
Oh, come on, think! The predators would have trouble finding any prey before it would have multiplied suitably, even on a reasonably small flat earth. Of course they were living for generations from all the fish lying everywhere. It stands to reason that the fish would not be rotting fast at a time when people lived close to a thousand years. Probably because of Noah only taking two bacteria on board.
Bacteria aren’t animals. There could have been UPWARDS of two!
Honestly, the inbreeding that would result with that restricted of a gene pool would probably be a bigger problem.
Oh no it’s gonna be one of those relationships where the only thing people have in common is the same joke. O_O
Eh, not necessarily. ;p Finding common ground is just the first step to building a relationship.
So apparently a large portion of the comments has come to the conclusion that openly slamming what Joyce believes is worse than Joyce’s passive agressive judgement of other people’s actions?
There wouldn’t be much of a joke in this strip if we didn’t also believe, as readers, that what Joyce believes is ridiculous.
Joyce believes that -God- sits in judgement, and she is generally straightforward in expressing to people what she believes and why she thinks they should change, and she is -remarkably- non-judgmental about it, while these two are openly mocking her behind her back.
I mean, I think they’re kinda -right-, and it’s not like I’ve never done similar things, but it -is- a little mean.
More than a little, if you want my opinion.
Being mean doesn’t stop something from being funny. Nobody would love Mike if that were true.
… Heck, nobody would love Willis’ comics in general, if that were true. They’re packed to the brim with people being amusingly mean.
Joyce seems pretty judgmental to me.
I think Joyce seems like a perfectly understanding human being who has been told many things about the world that she is only recently realizing are not (forgive me) the god’s honest truth. I think she’s doing VERY well under the circumstances. Learning to separate the truth from the truth and lies you’ve been told your entire life is HARD. Joyce has made progress and shows signs of making much more as time goes on.
I should be clear that when I say she’s remarkably non-judgmental, that’s in the context of her upbringing. But really. her best friend is an atheist, she doesn’t have a problem with people drinking or partying, she’s a bit judgmental when it comes to sex, but seems pretty cool about homosexuality when she isn’t having identity crisis issues with her own sexuality.
Honestly, if not for her hangup about sex, I’d be hard pressed to find a sense in which she is judgmental at all. Even there, I suspect half of it is less her judging others and more her being terrified of her own feelings on the subject.
Joyce…she is being jugdamental about PREMARITAL HANKY PANKIE!, she wants sex, soon, with her husband. She likes to believe that everybody wants the same, deep inside, even when they say otherwise. And Sarah has been making fun of Joyce beliefs from day one, on her face, and Joyce aknowledges that. “you… B-word!” “you Cheese-Bags”, she’s not oblivious. Sarah is Sarah.
Poor Sarah. I had this friends with this tendency in college- their only friend-making strategy was bonding with people through complaining. I mean, everybody like a good venting session, right? Complaining about things is fun! And it’s less vulnerable than talking about things you like (because what if the other person doesn’t like it and they think you’re dumb? Not liking things is safer). But boy does it get tiring if every conversation goes that way.
Come on, Willis. There were seven of every animal on the ark. If you’re going to mock someone, do it correctly.
Not seven. Seven pairs.
But it depends on which version of the Biblical Ark story you’re talking about, as there are two in Genesis, one right after another. One said that Noah took seven pair of every “clean” animal, two pair of every “unclean” animal, and seven pair of every kind of bird. The other version only mentioned bringing two of every kind. When you believe in Biblical Inerrancy, there is no room for conflicting stories, as everything is the truth, and so reconciliation has to be made. And so I (and Joyce) learned that two of every kind of animal was brought on board, except for “clean” animals which got seven pair, which we decided was so that Noah and his family had some spares to eat. So, yes, Joyce believes basically that two of every kind of animal was brought on board the Ark (with “clean” animals being a negligibly small exception), and so the statements in the comic are correct.
Don’t even front. My Bible knowledge will crush you.
There’s also the pretense that 7 animals is an odd number. Babymaking in itself with the exception of herd animals typically takes 2. BUT, even with herd animals, you don’t just want one stud to a herd of females, because what happens if your bull/stallion/otherwise intact male dies? No, it would stand to reason that there would be at least 2 breeding males for every herding/flocking animal that is used for labor and for consumption, and to designate a herd/flock for them.
Since most herd animals required and still require space to roam and not go apeshit on each other or their caretakers, even the largest of arcs could probably only hold 2 very small herds of the oxen, horses, and asses (donkeys for those who don’t know better) that were needed… if you take the arc story at face value to begin with. Dividing up your herds and not mixing father-daughter/mother-son mating was a basic premise of herdsmen even back then, because I’m pretty sure they noticed that when those pairings did happen, the offspring came out with a higher rate of “less than ideal” in terms of animal quality.
So, if you’re going to correct someone on bible facts, try to have the correct bible facts… but also realize that having those is usually impossible since the bible frequently will state one thing and then immediately contradict it anywhere from 1 chapter to 1 sentence later. Also, try to make sure that your bible facts align with historical and anthropological facts about the people and the timeframe of those people who were around at the time, because otherwise you look rather foolish.
Also, while my upbringing was pretty ‘churchy’, and while I did read a good 80% of one of the modern versions of the bible from front cover onward, I still know better than to challenge someone who grew up in what I would refer to as a “super churchy” home, like Mr. Willis here has.
In all your time as an Evangelical, did anyone ever explain (or attempt to) where all the shit went, or how everyone didn’t die due to poor ventilation, or how the animals were prevented from eating each other, or how they were able to store enough food to feed every person and animal AND make it last 40 days without refrigeration, or how certain species native to other continents made it to the Ark and returned to whence they came, or why God required a old man to bust his ass when Yahweh could have snapped his fingers and turned all the wicked people into mashed potatoes…
I was told that in order to prevent stuff like babymaking and devouring each other, God put the animals on the Ark in some form of trance for the duration of the Ark trip. Which really makes you wonder why he can do that kind of magical stuff while requiring actual rain and floods to drown everyone. If he can actually go into everyone’s dang brains as he pleases, why the Flood at all? Couldn’t he just strike everyone sinful dead? No boat necessary?
God has a curious powerset.
Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to stop stealing from the Babylonians.
So, he stored the colonists in stasis pods, basically.
God totally stole that from BW.
Further proof that God is an alien and Jesus was his hybrid offspring.
Just curious here, as I read this topic, but how did they explain the genetic bottleneck issue with the Noah story? There aren’t enough breeding pairs to avoid inbreeding and recessive issues cropping up pretty quickly and causing species extinctions.
Hey, they started with a genetic bottleneck a 1600 years or so earlier with Adam and the gang, what’s one more?
Wouldn’t you have to believe in the validity of “genetic bottlenecks” in order to feel that they require explanation? But I can certainly imagine my preacher answering a smart-aleck kid (who, say, just found out about “minimum viable populations” in his biology class) by saying something like “Two was enough to start all of humanity back in the days of Adam and Eve, so all the animals on the ark became ‘Adams’ and ‘Eves’ for their kind.” Or some other similar bullshit.
I suppose if you were one of the “lucky” animals designated to be ‘saved’ on the arc (even if only temporarily to be a food source for the humans), you would be sustained in all ways by the will of God and would want not of food, water, room to move, relieving thyself, or satiating carnal lust…
Clearly even though Noah, his family, and those handpicked to be on the boat though, even though they were ‘chosen’ and “the least sinful/most holy/whatever” that God had deemed, still had to suffer such indignities… because even though “God loves humans DA BEST”, he was still all like “Fuck all ya’ll! I’m gonna kill most of youz and make the rest of you suffer while groveling for my forgiveness, bitchez!”.
I think someone did a personality disorder diagnosis on Old Testament God and found him to be something of a malignant narcicist.
Look What You Made God Do
I have to ask, were you ever confronted with someone who pointed out that Matthew links the birth of Jesus to Herod the Great who died in 4 BCE while Luke pins the birth of Jesus on the census undertaken by Quirinius which happened in 6 CE?
What explanation were you given for that one?
“Evidence will eventually be uncovered that will make sense of it.”
Wow. So sad.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
HA! The story they gave me was “The historians have it wrong, about the death of Herod, or about the timing of the census, or both. the Bible is right.”
Eh, that’s really the same answer as mine.
The gospels weren’t written down until around the 60s CE at the earliest about 30 years after Jesus died.
Bro, don’t even try to argue scripture with a former evangelist.
You will lose.
I had a philosophy professor like that–ex-minister and everything.
You cannot hope to defeat Willis in a Bible-off. He is simply the best there is.
Oh, no Willis is merely a well informed person of evangelical background. I know people with doctorates related directly to study of the Bible in its original tongues. Willis knows the scripture fairly well for someone who has later in life left his childhood belief system, but compared to men with multiple degrees from multiple institutions and literal decades of Biblical study under there belts? No not the “best”.
This is truth. I don’t even know languages that aren’t English!
I hardly expected the whole world to get that reference, but I at least thought no one would think I was being literal…
Well being one of those old school Christians. I tend to take things literally unless I’ve got a very clear reason not too.
Don’t screw this up! I’m finally getting somewhere! And maybe I’ll get down there, too!
Huh…never noticed that Joyce has big eyes before.
They fuel her powers of cuteness.
…..so last sentence of last panel. Is that really Sarah talking, or is she channeling Willis?
Well, it looks like Joyce has succeeded in bringing these two together…
Nice! I didn’t make that connection. Though I doubt this part was intentional for Joyce
SARAH NO JOYCE TRIED TO GET YOU WITH JACOB AND THIS IS HOW YOU REPAY HER WHYYYY
your gravitar is great for this
Can we please imagine what this comic would be like if Joyce talked in 3rd person like you just implied? I think it would be hilarious
That would make Joyce more Faz-esque, which is why we refrain from imagining that.
Joyce: Yes, Ethan, look at the great Joyce’s tummy.
Joyce IS helping! More than she knows!
Sarah used Common Ground!
It’s super effective!
Sarah leveled up!
+5 social skills
Ideally it leads to +9 Dicking.
Sarah wants to learn DICKING.
However, Sarah cannot learn more than four moves.
Should a move be forgotten and replaced with DICKING?
-BITCH -BAT SWING
Sarah forgot EAT.
This is going well. I expect that to be rectified with all haste.
Oh… come on guys… you don’t say things like that.
“If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket” and all that jazz.
Except when it gets tax exemptions. Then it picks your pocket pretty well.
I can appreciate the need to vent, but I also hope Joyce does not hear about Sarah and Jacob’s initial common ground. I am sure they will find other things. If nothing else, they share a class and (presumably) a major.
If Jacob is still like his Walkyverse version of himself in regards to life goals, then he’s likely a pre-law major like Sarah. It would stand to reason they’d have a class together without Joyce such as “Intro to Law” or “Intro to Criminal Justice”… where you do nothing but talk about law system in various governments past and present and read Supreme Court cases and write essays about them until your eyes bleed.
Since Joyce is in a more “childhood development” and teaching major, she likely wouldn’t be in that one with them… and if she was, I’d be amazed she made it past the first utterance of “Seperation of Church and State”.
Aaand I’m sure Joyce has heard worse in regards to her beliefs. She’s hung out with Walky enough to stand to go to lunch with him, and he doesn’t really have any qualms about pointing out how ‘dumb’ he thinks people’s beliefs or actions are. He ridiculed her for going to college to find a husband, which really made her mad, yet they still went out to eat and can talk about other things semi-civilly. She probably views all contention of her beliefs as tests of her faith and so said contention makes her beliefs stronger, with the exception of her choosing to remain friends with Dorothy (atheist) despite all the religious authorities around her saying that doing so would ‘taint’ her relationship with God.
Joyce has certainly heard harsher things about her beliefs, but I think she would still be fairly hurt to know that after she tried to make her “big sister” Sarah happy by getting her together with Jacob, by purchasing an outfit that Sarah is wearing right now, Sarah’s chosen method of breaking the ice is to mock Joyce behind her back.
That’s true. Things you hear to your face usually do hurt worse when they’re not said to your face. It’s essentially backstabbing, because you don’t get a chance to fight back or defend yourself.
I’m sure Joyce would still turn the other cheek, but given that’s what I used to do in those scenarios, or try my darndest to ‘fix’ things so people wouldn’t talk shit, it’s extremely unhealthy. Stuff like that bogs you down until you sink and either drown in low self esteem, or hurt yourself breaking free of it and becoming a much less ‘open’ person.
Yep, this is a pre-law class. I just wasn’t sure it was established they were both pre-law past what can be inferred. My friends and I had a number of classes between us that didn’t go toward our eventual majors (or even degrees) simply to get a feel for what that field was like (though I’m pretty sure my psych statistics class was a poor choice for that), though, so we can’t rule out the possibility of differing majors entirely. Or at least I’m not doing so until I have canon proof.
. . . Even if I’m mostly sure. Aaand now I want to go on a Sarah and Jacob re-read binge. I mean, if I can’t sleep anyway, it’s totally a reasonable way to spend my time, right?
As for Joyce, I’m sure she has, but having someone say they disagree with her to her face and hearing secondhand that someone she rooms with, is fond of, and considers like a sister is mocking her beliefs as a bonding ritual with the guy she helped set that person up with may evoke different reactions entirely. Sort of like the difference between a friend telling her upfront, “That Monkey Master outfit you wear is kinda ridiculous looking,” and finding out that when she’s gone, some of her friends mock her clothing choices behind her back.
And as I said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to blow off a little steam, because as much as I like Joyce (and as much as I think Sarah likes Joyce), I can imagine that for someone like Sarah, Joyce might be difficult at times to live with. All the same, because Joyce and Sarah are friends and because I interpret Joyce as very much admiring and looking up to Sarah, I’d think Joyce’s reaction on discovery could be one of hurt.
And thus, no blame for Sarah on this conversation with Jacob, but I do hope Joyce never knows. It’s somewhat unlikely, but rule of drama says we could see Joyce’s adorably sad face in the future.
Actually the phrase “Separation of Church and State” was coined in a dialogue with a group of Christians about keeping the new colonial Government from messing with them, otherwise they wouldn’t through their political clout behind the new constitution. So you actually have fundamental/literalist Bible believers to thank for the Bill of Rights. (At least the First Amendment.)
I keep thinking of that segment of “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” where Lucy’s curiosity leads her into finding out (via a book page that acts like a video window) what some of her school chums really think of her.
This conversational gambit is pretty much guaranteed success, in my experience.
“You know that guy? WHAT is UP with that guy SERIOUSLY”
To be fair to Sarah here, talking about things your friends do that you find weird or annoying with other friends is hardly that unusual. She cares enough about Joyce to follow her to a party and attack her attempted rapist with a baseball bat, I’m hardly going to blame her for going “No, seriously, what is UP with all those crazy fundie beliefs of hers?” She’s been sitting on the annoyance of biting her tongue when Joyce says something ridiculous since the beginning of term, I think she’s allowed to let the mockery out for a little bit.
I know I’d be saying the exact same thing in that situation, but I can’t help but feel this is going to come back to bite Sarah in the ass. And I don’t want it to.
My mom thinks evolution was invented by communists to destroy God.
Did it work?
Doesn’t sound like a very solid plan. I’d imagine God would only be happy to take some time off species-creating. If anything, he might be a little miffed that he didn’t think of it himself.
Has anyone even found any confirmed antediluvian communist fossils?
Joyce has to take one for the team.
So how many Joyce Browns are there? Or is it Joyce Browns as in fundamentalists? Fundamentalists named Joyce Brown? Are there many of those? I don’t really know the statistics.
I believe it’s a reference to this South Park episode, at the 12 minute mark
In all fairness to Sarah, she is not lying about Joyce and neither is Jacob.
Joyce is exactly as they are describing her, and has said the things they say she has said.
I was taught not to say anything behind someone’s back that I would not say to their face. I did not always go by that rule but it was always lurking in the back of my mind.
I don’t think it is right to put people down behind their backs, but if I were Sarah, and doing what she is doing, I would not even try to deny it if it came back to Joyce.
Remember people, we are talking about Joyce here: she hears what Sarah and Joyce have said, and she would bat her big blue eyes and say, “Oh how nice. They really do listen to me”.
Enjoyed the chat tonight, interesting as usual. I’m Wicca so Christian debate is not something I try to get involved in. I too have studied the Bible both old and new and the ‘Catholic Church deleted books’ versions, along with The Book of Mormon, and the Koran. All are interesting, all are mythology.
Imo of course.
Sarah being Sarah, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she’s mocked Joyce’s beliefs openly to her face.
Though, Joyce being Joyce, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she didn’t catch on that she was being mocked.
Remember when Joyce got vaccinated and Sarah laughed in her face because she disbelieves evolution but voluntarily got a painful shot because of it?
Oooooh! You’re Wiccan, then? I’ve always wondered what were the Wiccan believing exactly, the information available on wikipedia is not really enough to satiate me…
Would you be annoyed if I asked a few questions?
For example, what/who do you believe in? Supreme being(s), spirits, supernatural, a combination of all? And why do think this beliefs are more “real” (if I may be so bold to use the term) than others?
The thing about Wicca is that there isn’t one set tradition or path. Some people who call themselves Wiccan have been initiated in to a particular tradition and each tradition has it’s own specific ways and practices. Some people who call themselves Wiccan have learned on their own, from books and such, and practice on their own. Some call themselves eclectic Wicca and take bits they find fit them best from many traditions and make their own path.
Thank you, I can imagine that there might be a lot of various groups, with the lack of a centralized authority like catholicism or sacred scripture, but I’m interested in whatever Wicca anyone would have on hand
The thing that bugs me about this interaction is the sort of malicious glee on Sarah’s face.
Ahhhhh, Sarah be careful this could go horribly wrong. Not cool to be dissing your friend just to get with some guy you like.
Wow, way to take the bible literally. Noah didn’t load up ALL the animals into his boat, just the ones in his region, the area that was flooded. The entire earth wasn’t flooded, and there is scientific proof of its actual existence.
IN THAT CASE THE ARK WAS FUCKING POINTLESS
Yes, what a surprise, Judaism borrowed the story from an earlier Mesopotamian myth based on a real event, which became part of Christianity in turn.
There really isn’t a single element of Christianity that wasn’t borrowed from another religion.
*potentially true. This based on a vague memory of one history channel special, which given where they’ve gone since, may not be the best source.
That’s a little misleading, Christianity isn’t “borrowed” from other religions. Christianity is basically Judaism except they believe Jesus is the savior unlike there Jewish origins. A lot of events and dates are taken from other religions to be fair though because they were used as a means to convert followers.
Additionally the story of Noah/Epic of Gilgamesh(Flooding story) isn’t necessarily borrowed either. Both stories originate from the same time period, and there’s no accounting for where the Jewish people were at during that time period, it’s actually quite likely both stories refer to the same event as it’s same area same time sorta thing.
I’m not sure how you can say “both stories originate from the same time period” when the Epic of Gilgamesh is from about 1300 BC and the Jewish Bible was assembled sometime around 700 BC. That’s a difference of quite a few hundred years, and it’s kind of telling that the Jewish Bible wasn’t put together until after the Israelites returned from Babylonian captivity.
Of course, both stories are eclipsed in age by the Sumerian flood myth from 1700 BC.
And saying that Christianity is “basically Judaism” tells me you don’t know much about Judaism. Christian Sunday Schools teach a pretty Christianized Judaism that doesn’t really exist.
The Jewish bible may have been compiled at that point, but it was based on Jewish oral tradition that went back hundreds of years prior.
There isn’t necessarily a time period conflict there. There may be, but there isn’t necessarily.
Actually, why the hell am I saying ‘jewish bible’? We don’t refer to it like that at all. The compilation of the Torah would be the relevant set of scripture, not the entire Tanakh, and the earliest documents there go back to 900 BC, and again, represented oral traditions that were much older.
I agree, “Jewish Bible” is a dumb way to refer to it, but finding a simple way to refer to those writings in ways that most other people will understand while not using condescending terms is not an easy task. Most points of reference necessitate a secondary relationship to Christianity, which is frustrating. Especially since, as you mention, it kind of sidesteps the truth from the outset — as I understand it, Jewish folks think about their Scripture a lot differently than we do, and include stuff like oral traditions, as you mention. What we know as the Old Testament is not the end-all and be-all of pre-Roman Jewish traditions.
Man, I once read a book by a Jewish scholar who spent like three chapters trying to figure out the best way to refer to these books, ultimately deciding, dammit, they’re all problematic, I give up. I tried to use the least mean-sounding one. Apologies, regardless.
Well, I have read that some South American mythologies have legends about flooding and a person saving animals and seeds, so perhaps this Noah/Gilgamesh legend has a little bit of truth and it talks about when the last Ice Age ended and the sea level rose.
Or the regular devastating flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates. Either way you end up with massive water damage.
When I was a kid, my grandmother had one of those pictures of Jesus with The Sacred Heart and he was holding up one hand with the pinky and the ring finger curled in while the others were extended. When I was in third grade, we went to the museum and there was a statue of Horus with his hand in the same pose and a statue of Isis with baby Horus that reminded me of the Virgin Mary and Jesus statue from church. That actually sparked my interest in exploring and learning about other religions.
“There really isn’t a single element of Christianity that wasn’t borrowed from another religion.”
Whoa, maybe that’s why Christianity and America seem to go so well together. America’s a culture that basically is a giant mix of every culture, and Christianity is pretty much the same about its beliefs.
Oh, for goodness’ sake.
Contested but plausible scientific explanation for the inspiration of the event =/= Scientific proof of its actual existence.
Prediction: while Jacob agrees that Joyce’s ideas are ridiculous, he is a modern-thinking Christian, and Sarah says something about ALL Christians being dumb, not just the fundies, and he gets offended and stops talking to her.
YAY! Common ground!!!
Ah, bonding over mocking a mutual friend/acquaintance. Something I’ve seen all too often.
And also just as often, helped facilitate by being the party mocked! Oh, the wonderful feeling of betrayal and hurt that comes from discovering THAT!
Which is why next page we’ll get to see that Joyce has been listening in on at least half this conversation!
Weird, seeing that this is a second-year law(?) class.
Or, as Tom Paxton put it, some people you don’t have to satirize; you just quote them.
This is why the Onion isn’t funny anymore.
It’s also the basis of Poe’s Law.
THE JOYCE BROWNS
Also a very good name for a death drone doom black satan metal thrashergrind punk band.
So, am I the only one that noticed the guy described Joyce as the girl with the ‘big blue eyes’ and a ‘great smile’? Maybe we should start shipping yet another couple!
And Jacob (in Shortpacked, at least) has a sex addiction.
I want to see this happen.
In regards to your evidence though, his smile seems more like the smile of someone trying to politely complain about something.
This conversation better be headed towards “Ah, we joke, but she’s a good kid.” Otherwise, Sarah’s prediction of “talking changes things” will apply SO hard.
It’s pretty awful to have your common ground being trash talking the person who probably qualifies as your closest friend behind their back.
They kind of did it to her face ‘yesterday’. With the no swearing conversation.
Ah, yes, I had forgotten.
Sarah is awful.
Bat. Rapist. Plz have a memory better than mine.
I’ve had a group of “Joyce Browns” go to my SCIENCE high school and preach that homosexuality is a sin and knights hunted down dinosaurs.. I grew up in a heavily Catholic country, but I never really grew up with that sort of teachings. My famil wasn’t that fundamentalist, so the most religious thing about my upbringing was Protestant Bible picture books where everyone was white.
Same here. I did go to church and CCD and stuff, but never really learned to disagree with science or to hate people because their different. Heck, my religious upbringing placed a lot of emphasis on forgiveness and treating others how you wish to be treated. Honestly, I was in for a culture shock when I found out how other people taught it.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools from kindergarten thru sophomore year in high school. I was the perfect little blotter in my formative years; whatever the nuns or priests said I soaked up. It was like pouring water onto the sands of the Sahara.
But once I got old enough to understand about things like dinosaurs, science, and the concept of evolution I basically resolved the issue by following a modification of what I believe is now called “intelligent design”. I still accept much of the Creation story — God created the world from nothing, etc. — but His methodology is what we now call evolution. Or, to borrow a phrase from the ‘Mythbuster’ guys, “Stand back! I’m going to use SCIENCE!!”
Well at least they have a common theme to talk about.
What a meta punch line.
Belief in Noah and the flood is about to skyrocket.
“Of course he could build an ark that big and get all the animals on it. He’s Russell Crowe. He’s badass.”
Eh, if it was Liam Neeson I could see it happening.
Second time today that Joyce has come in handy.
Hehe. Super Adventure Club.
Somewhere in the world, a woman named Joyce Brown is reading this comic and going, “WTF! I don’t believe that!”
I would find this much funnier if it wasn’t for the fact that they could just as easily be talking about Mrs. Animal’s two brothers.
There’s a town somewhere in the southern U.S. that invented this stuff. The mayor, judge & a christian school-teacher got together & put on a show-trial, persecuting the teacher for telling his classes about evolution.
The whole thing was a joke, fabricated to get the town in the papers & boost tourism. Schools at that time taught science.
It’s tragic that, 50-odd years later, supposedly educated people really are teaching creationism.
There is a tendency among educated people, many of them quite intelligent, to assume that because they are knowledgeable in one field, that they are also well-informed about other fields.
Case in point: Neal DeGrasse Tyson, a wonderful cosmologist who I enjoy reading – except when he talks about economics, a subject in which is is obviously not educated and frankly doesn’t know his ass from his face.
Almost the polar opposite is Ben Stein, a solid, knowledgeable, highly regarded economist, who made a stupid creationist apologetics movie, because he doesn’t know his ass from his face about biology.
It’s a pretty common tendency.
There’s also the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which real dimwits have the tendency to think they are much smarter than they are.
Most of them are in Congress.
The Scopes monkey trial. For an excellent dramatization I recommend Inherit The Wind.
“But enough about Joyce. Tell me where you got this sexy outfit.”
After joking about how stupid creationism is, I can only assume that Jacob will reveal that he has a crush on Dina, the resident expert on creationism being stupid.
You know, you can be absolutely right and still be a fucking asshole. We can argue the effect of empirically analyzing the existence of a God over science, but it doesn’t change the fact that Joyce has never been duplicitous in her actions, been straight-forward about her beliefs and hasn’t talked behind her back about people she disagrees with.
Meanwhile, the ‘heroes’ are gossiping and belittling her for a personal conviction for no reason other to bitch. That’s not creative or funny, it’s just being a bully. Concepts of theology and science don’t factor into the reality that your heroes are acting like petty teenagers gossiping about hair style.
If this is what counts as the people we should root for, you have to really ask if being right makes you a good person.
Well, weirdly, I’ve kinda been seeing it that Joyce was the main character (though, as it is an ensemble piece, so there are multiple mains, but Joyce feels more like the central one). Though I also don’t see any of them as heroes, but rather as people with their own flaws and virtues.
If she’s the main character, do you think we’ll get a shot of Joyce able to defend people calling her beliefs jokes and laughable and just general disrespect? Even if she believes they’re right, will these two understand that what they’re doing takes a far more sinister spin than just being wrong, where now it’s a personal besmirch on her character?
I would like to see that, that Joyce can have her viewpoint shaken without kowtowing to everybody’s wild ranting, but where another character told her parents that they raised her wrong, and they just nodded in agreement, I doubt we will. The world ends up being a sort of message that being right = being likable, and they aren’t. The people they attack may be wrong, but they’re more generally considerate than our characters have been, and that’s troubling to me. It troubles me that our writer seems to market this as the norm, that being correct excuses behavior that’s really foul and petty and just… makes it very hard to want to see these characters proven right because then they won’t learn any discretion or tact.
Sarah has, in fact, already suffered negative consequences for being mean about being right. It’s one of her character flaws and it cost her every friend she had.
Well, okay. Will this reflect on what she’s doing to Joyce, though?
It might. After all, she was reflecting on that exact incident, caused by this exact flaw, just moments earlier.
I don’t think Willis is presenting this conversation as admirable. What it’s doing is showing that Sarah is willing to latch onto this topic because it’s really the only thing she has to talk to Jacob about, even if it means being mean behind Joyce’s back, which I think would be pretty widely considered a negative trait. (Not to say I think Sarah’s a bad person. But it’s more complicated than just “she’s right and we’re supposed to like her.”)
I don’t know what comic you’ve been reading here? One in which Sarah and Jacob are the “heroes?” Sarah has had one major storyline centered around her, and Jacob’s spoken, like, 5 lines through the entire existence of this comic so far. So I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that these are the heroes who we’re meant to root for against Joyce. If there IS a main character or “hero” in this comic, it’s Joyce. The only person here I see calling Sarah and Jacob the “heroes” and claiming that Willis means for us to approve of their behavior is you. You’re arguing against that interpretation, but I don’t see where you’d even get that interpretation to begin with.
Based on historical precedent and his so-far untarnished record at being heroic and admirable, I’d say that if the comic has a single main character, it’s Danny.
They are petty teenagers. I suspect you misunderstand the nature of the comic you are reading, fleshlings.
I hope this goes well for Sarah. She deserves a little bit of good luck and happiness.
Two people reaching for Euphoria.
Inadvertent outing in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
(Please let Alt verse Jacob be bi or gay. We need an Ethan has a sex!)
Does Shortpacked’s Manny not please you?
I find him to be (in character, rather than actual skin tone) “generically beige.”
The sort you could replace with a cardboard standee and it would be a while before anyone noticed.
The impression I got was that there’ll be new characters later on, and one of them will end up with Ethan. So far, Willis hasn’t switched around anyone else’s sexuality, so it’d be weird if Jacob was the one exception.
I find this incredibly adorable and I don’t know why.
That’s harsh, Sierra…
Sierra is innocent of all wrongdoing!
You don’t know that.
I think you’d have been correct if you’d said that to pretty much anyone else.
Sierra has secretly been stealing pencils and hoarding them under her mattress. She has long forgot why she started, now it’s about the mission.
Until proven guilty in a court of law. And then executed.
No guys stop being mean to Joyce she set you 2 up
P. Sure Joe gets as more credit as Joyce, seeing as he brought Jacob into contact w/ her. Joyce just got her a top, because she’s mad Ethan loves Amber more than her XD
I sense a horrible guilt stricken scene soon when Joyce calls her her great friend.
People didnt hunt down the dinosaurs, they died after the flood because the air was harsher and they couldnt take enough into their lungs. If the creation museum can believe it, why cant you? Now let us all pray that Willis will go back to church, repent of being an insidious faith-traitor and forget this whole webcomic shtick before the trolls finally have their way and Willis will be “damned”…FOREVER. (*echoes*) Whoops, sorry, guess I was channeling Mary or something.
*glances up* Well I’m thoroughly disgusted. :p There’s a single drive-by commenter throwing in a single “religion is child abuse” line and yet dozens of people feel “offended” enough to not let it go. We even have the token “atheist ally”.
I’d think that our guys have been in enough YouTube comment sections to realize they should not respond to bait like that. :p
Ridereyu isn’t a drive by, though they may be trolling.
The euphoria is strong in this one.
Why do I think that Jacob hopes that his is one of the “like a billion dicks”?
And why do I dislike him for that?
Dammit, Joyce — why did I not know someone like you in my college days?
Or if I did, why did I not recognize you?
This should have been a separate post. I claim PWI.
Gotta love those Creationists
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 main character of Dumbing of Age?
©2010-2014 Dumbing of Age | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑