The trouble with arguing with him is that he’s a popular cartoonist, and I’m not. Cartoons suffer from the Twitter/Facebook effect – a humourous pithy short attack or condemnation of something is far more interesting and retweetable than any nuanced response to it. And then, of course, you get accused of having no sense of humour. And if he ever reads this post and takes offence, there’ll be cartoons lampooning me. Still, Jesus had to endure being mocked, so that’s an OK risk to take.
So, then, a few thoughts in response:
So is judging people wrong, then? Because there seems to be plenty of judgement in this comic. If it is wrong, then who says so, and who died and made them king? It’s easy to mock the moral stance of others, but rather difficult (if your understanding of the world doesn’t include an omnipotent moral lawgiver) to figure out why the morality you are in favour of should apply to other people. Should I not judge because a “silly web cartoonist” (his words) tells me not to? Morality can’t be hung from skyhooks.
This is before we even talk about what Jesus actually meant, in context, by “Do not judge, or you too will be judged”.
The Galileo affair was not the best moment in the life of the church. But the second comic makes the error that so many bits of reporting on stem cells make that one would almost think people are trying to hide the truth. There are two main types of stem cells – adult, and embryonic. Adult stem cells come from, well, adults, and I’ve never heard of anyone who has any theological problem with them. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embroyos, tiny people who are killed by the process. And that is a problem.
Thing is, which type of cells have been producing all the amazing treatments and treatment possibilities? Adult stem cells. A guy recently became able to walk again after they injected stem cells from his nose into his spine. That’s so awesome. By contrast, despite lots of positive talk, they can’t figure out how to stop the embryonic ones giving you cancer. And yet, every time there’s a “stem cell success” story, the church is castigated for “its opposition to stem cell research”, and people vow to continue the murder of microscopic human beings.
In the last panel, is he really asserting that anyone can make any old thing up, and the universe will bend to accommodate the wishes of the person concerned? Or just that it’s cool and righteous to affirm people in whatever rubbish they make up in their own minds? Also, no matter how politely phrased, “No-one really knows for sure” is dogma, plain and simple. All education is indoctrination – the question is simply “whose doctrine?”. What he is really saying is “don’t use your doctrine, use mine”.
I wonder if the Oatmeal had a kid, who was told “no-one really knows”, and who replied “well, I think God then decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and I’m worried about your eternal soul”, he’d say “sure, sweetie”, or “NO. NO-ONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE AND THAT’S FINAL.” Given the rest of the comic’s antipathy towards Christianity…
My religion gives me no anxieties about my sexuality at all. However, what the Oatmeal is really saying is “any parameters religion puts around the correct use of sex are evil”. So is he in favour of no parameters at all (permitting every vile act one could imagine – you know I could list all the usual things which every country makes illegal) or does he just want to impose different parameters to the ones Christianity does? And if so, apart from the detail of what’s in and what’s out (ahem), how is his principle of imposing laws regarding the expression of sexuality any different from the principle that he mocks?
Christians who try and convince others that what they believe is true are not trying to “validate their beliefs”. There are no points from God for making more Christians. In fact, Christians can’t make more Christians – only God can do that. We don’t get any credit when it happens. Also, Christians are (or should be) specifically encouraged to avoid groupthink – the idea that if lots of people believe something, it must be true. (Incidentally, if you think Buddhists all leave people alone, read this and this.)
Fortunately, the real and true “awesome shit” is available to everyone. Including the Oatmeal.
Calling something ‘crazy’ is not an argument. It’s hard to refute a sneer. And, of course, his summary of what Christians believe is wrong in several places. If it’s such crazy nonsense, why not illustrate using the version Christianity teaches, rather than a straw man? Or is the real view not so crazy after all?
Amen to the general point here. Although the idea (which, I agree, is not his main point) that one should vote based on which policies are better for you personally is a sad, divisive and dangerous one. One should vote based on which policies are best for society as a whole. (For me, those are generally policies which make the law conform more closely to God’s law. YMMV.)
Yes, indeed. Je suis….
Yes, I would die for Jesus. Adam4d puts it well:
No, I would not kill for Jesus. However, the point of Christianity is not to “inspire people to help people” (although it does) or to make you happier (although it might) or to help you cope with the atheistic feeling of cosmic helplessness (although it does deal with it very effectively). Christianity is not utilitarian. The point is to have a real relationship with your Creator – to know Christ. Which is the most awesome thing in the world. Having experienced it, who would ever want to keep it to themselves?