Trudeau insults Christians in Easter Day Doonesbury cartoon

Doonesbury Cartoon ^ | April 20, 2003 | Gary Trudeau

[JHL]

On Easter of all days, Gary Trudeau uses his Doonesbury cartoon to insult Christians in general, and George Bush's faith in particular. How quick the liberals are to condemn someone else's faith and belief system, but just let a Christian say anything negative about another's belief system and how quick they are to invoke an injunction against "judgementalism."

You can read the cartoon for yourself at the following link CLICK HERE for cartoon

[gore3000]

Creation "scientists" always avoid going the route of written, carefully documented debate.

Another lie. It is the evolutionists who refuse to debate in ANY FORMAT those who oppose evolution. Your actions - insults and slimes at opponents, show very well the inability of evolution to discuss the facts. If the answers to those who oppose evolution were out there, there would be no need for slimes and insults from evolutionists. You could present the proof and have these discussions over with in a minute.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Why? Why do you believe that Greenland has always been in the same place? What evidence do you have for that? Why do you believe that the ice goes back 4,000,000,000 or so years?

You can look up the ice field measurements whenever you feel like learning something.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You still haven't said why you believe that radioisotope measurements don't give a reliable age for the Earth. You have answered no questions.

[george wythe]

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm a Catholic, from a long line of faithful Catholics.

I believe that organic evolution is the best theory to explain the origin of the human body.

My Catholic parents have believed that since their childhood.

There is a difference between the origins of the human body and the origins of the human soul .

Did you read the part about the Pope accepting the theory of evolution to explain the origins of human body?

Can you tell the difference between the human body and the human soul/spirit?

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Do you agree with the Pope that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” to explain the origin of the human body, not the human soul?

[GeorgiaYankee]

As I remember it, in the late 90's, around Christmas ,Hillary was trying to make some political point about the mean stingy Republicans cutting (or not increasing) some social spending, so she tossed in something like "at this time of year when we remember the birth of a homeless child to an unemployed father...."!!!!

[Diplomat]

There is no center of expansion, just like there is no center on the surface of a balloon. Therefore the concept of a "center" to the universe is meaningless, just like there is no center on the Earth's surface. The balloon's surface can expand, without a center of origin, and the universe is the same way.

he universe of galaxies is shaped and is acting such that they are moving sort of away from each other like an expanding balloon. The universe has no center because the surface of the balloon has no center. But does not the balloon as a whole have a center?

[GeorgiaYankee]

Hillary was bashing Rudy on the homeless issue. I found this in FR archives. Looks like Jesse Jackass was first to call the baby Jesus and his parents "homeless."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a384bb6b05249.htm

After a woman in midtown Manhattan was hit in the head by a panhandler wielding a 6-pound paving stone -- requiring brain surgery to save her life -- New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (Hillary's likely opponent next year) ordered police to round up denizens of the heating grates who refuse to go to shelters in the evening.

Hillary is highly indignant. "Criminalizing the homeless with mass arrests for those whose only offense is that they have no home is wrong," the first lady bleated last week.

She went on to observe that the season upon us celebrates "the birth of a homeless child" (as related in the Epistle of Saint Jesse to the Rainbow Coalition?). Mary and Joseph had a home in Nazareth, Hillary. They were temporarily in Bethlehem for a tax census, a project your husband would approve of............

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[merak]

The guy appears freaked at the idea of a president not believing in evolution. My guess is he's in for a hard time in the coming years.

[Junior]

Once again, moron. I do not attack Christians or "just about everything in the Bible." I attack certain Christians' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Of course, in your twisted little mind, disagreeing on an interpretation of the first seven or eight chapters in a book containing hundreds of chapters means that I disagree with "just about everything." Of course, your entire Bible appears to only consist of the first eight chapters; should we commence arguing on other sections? How about "once saved, always saved?" Or (my view) that faith without works is dead? Should women follow St. Paul's admonitions and be silent? Or should they instead follow the example set by Christ and be an integral part of his ministry? You see, there is a lot of room for disagreement in interpretation throughout the entire Bible, and yet my disagreeing with a literal interpretation of Genesis makes me an atheist. Only a small percentage of American Christians still view Genesis as being how God literally did it; I guess the rest of us are atheists.

And, if God created the universe, and if life arose therein, could it not be argued that God created life even if He Himself did not step out and zap the first microbe into existence personally, but had set the whole thing in motion knowing that microbes would "naturally" come of it? Now you want to split hairs on the definition of creation: you believe it can't be true unless God intervened; I hold that God's creation was perfect from the beginning and there was no need to intervene, that life was a "natural" consequence of the creation of the universe. My view is consistent with the body of scientific evidence and yours is not. You drive people from the church with your blatant obfuscations and outright lies (misquoting scientists, for example) and your inability to see the forest for the trees. Each of us will have to answer for his views, and I'm pretty sure God will not take as dim a view of evolution as He will of deceit and the dissolution of His flock because of it.

[Junior]

Let's see, the earth is close to 5 billion years old so the snow in greenland must be a thousand miles high correct?????

Nope, because it hasn't always snowed in Greenland. Oops, I keep forgetting, as a creationist you have to reject modern geology (continental drift) and paleometeorology.

[gore3000]

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

Darwinian evolution is materialistic, period. The Pope specifically warned against it in the encyclical as I discussed (and you and the rest of the evolutionists have totally ignored). So that says nothing about your not being an atheist. You have also not answered my points about your statements against Genesis and Christ's statements in the Bible.

So again, let's make it real simple so you cannot weasel your way out of it:

What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The point is that only the surface exists. The properties are intrinsic to the surface of balloon as a two-dimensional object. (This was due to Gauss who invented methods of describing a surface intrinsically.) The surface of a sphere is boundless but finite.

There is no preferred point on the surface.

[whattajoke]

Let's see, the earth is close to 5 billion years old so the snow in greenland must be a thousand miles high correct?????

Once again, the esteemed Mr. Gore3000 (has there ever been an explanation of that screen name?) exhibits for the world his complete and utter ignorance. Over time, conditions change. Hawaii was underwater. Iraq was a fertile, lush land. England was under a glacier. The Rockies were hills much while the Appalachians were Alpine. On and on. Your childlike views on life and the processes that drive it are simply embarrassing.

[HalfFull]

I attack certain Christians' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis

You also attack Christ Himself...is Christ not telling the truth when He said,:
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

I feel for those who have to pick and chose what they want to believe from scripture. The sad part is they have to spiritualize away the plain meaning of much of scripture.

How about "once saved, always saved?" Or (my view) that faith without works is dead?

Have you considered that both of these teachings could be true? Probably not.

[whattajoke]

Ok, so you believe every word of the bible. Do I really need to dig up a list of outdated, violent, horrifying passages that I"m sure you're very aware of? Of course not, because you'll tell me, "different time, different laws" or "that gosh darned OT, so silly in 2003!" Or whatever.

The ability to pick and choose what's literal, what's allegorical, and what's no longer applicable is the fundies greatest "gift."

[HalfFull]

The ability to pick and choose what's literal, what's allegorical, and what's no longer applicable is the fundies greatest "gift."

Since you are so keen on name calling and ridicule, I wouldn't even try to discuss certain aspects of Systematic Theology with you. I'd bet you don't even understand the term (heck, you can't even understand the irony of the name "gore3000")

[Junior]

The ability to pick and choose what's literal, what's allegorical, and what's no longer applicable is the fundies greatest "gift."

And evidently they are the only ones so blessed.

[whattajoke]

Hebrew 11... a nice little chapter outlining what faith means to Christians... as proposed by the author of Hebrews. Because God certainly wouldn't make mistakes!

"11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised"

Well that's a bummer. They (Abraham's descendants) were promised "the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" back in Genesis and Exodus. Here, Paul admits it was a bad deal, but gives them credit for their faith. Fair enough, but I'd rethink the next promise. But then again, I don't have faith!

"11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son..."

This is just one of those picayune little contradictions that the bible is rife with. For all good Christians and Jews know that Abraham had 2 sons (Gen 16:15 AND Gal 4:22). I always wondered why they didn't correct this type of stuff when they edited the bible a few centuries ago. (There's even a couple more in this chapter alone, but I'll spare you.)

An interesting verse(32)of this chapter for believers is the reference to some faithful historical heavyweights, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. Now, I'm certainly not about to say they didn't have faith! In fact, I think some may have had a bit too much! To wit:

Judges 7: 4-7, Gideon had to lap up water like a dog, then get a bunch of his pals to do the same. God proposed this test... Early Fear Factor? In Judges 8:20-22, he tried to force his sons to kill some prisoners, and when they wouldn't he did the deed himself.

And Jephthah? Nice guy... Judges 11:30-39; he barbecued his only daughter for God.

Samson killed a ton of people, when the "spirit of the Lord" was within him. (throughout Judges)

Not to be outdone, David killed even more. In fact, he murdered entire towns of people, and stole all their stuff. (1Sam 27:9-11) But that wasn't good enough, so he dabbled in torture a bit. (2Sam 4:12 and 12:31)

I'll stop here. And please don't bother flaming me... I'm well aware none of you would commit these acts, this was a wholly different time period, and faith is almost always a good thing. Just thought I'd point out the bible isn't the best book to use to decide everything in life.

[nicmarlo]

"11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son..."

The point to this: God told Abraham that the promises He made to Abraham would come THROUGH Isaac, the very son Isaac was told to sacrifice; that is where Abraham's faith came into play. He believed God's promise, EVEN THOUGH he was also told to offer up Isaac. This means, Abraham believed God would provide an alternate sacrifice at the last minute (which He did), or God would restore Isaac to life. Abraham did not disbelieve God's promises that blessings would come from Isaac's seed.