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

[JudgemAll]

The more they lie, the more the government is going to regulate the disagreements. The more the government is going to regulate the disagreement because of people who lie and do not want to take the time to understand Christianity's wisdom, the more government wins and we all become slaves. However, ultimately, if the state is not stupid and after growth, it will adopt Christian principles in the end... but I won't hold my breath, yet it is a possibility that liberals will unwittingly cause America to become a theocracy.

[PatrickHenry]

There is NO evidence of evolution. None!

That is your comment in response to a website with photos and information about pre-human skulls? [Lurkers: the website link is in post 182.]

[HalfFull]

but I've never said anything anti-Christian. Creationism does not equal Christianity, except in your twisted little mind.

Pretty laughable, Junior, considering you do not believe Genesis and that Jesus Himself quotes Genesis...and refers to both the flood of Noah and Adam and Eve.

As I quoted earlier, Jesus directly said (and not in a parable), 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 notice you ignored this quote before. If your position is Jesus did not tell the truth here, then your Christianity is certainly in question.

[Junior]

Ever thought that Jesus was playing to His audience? It would be much like a modern preacher saying, "and just like the prodigal son..."

Like it or not, Genesis does not square with the physical evidence. Now, we can see the quotes in one of several ways: Jesus was speaking literally, in which case He didn't know about the existence of the evidence, and therefore wasn't divine. That's a non-starter, unless you are a Unitarian. Or, Jesus knew about the evidence but was using a reference that He knew His audience would understand, and since He never communicated that He knew the difference, the author of the Gospel never recorded that He knew the difference. This would square more with what we know about the real world, something with which certain folks refuse to become acquainted.

Of course, such reasoning is beyond the capability of some on these threads. Such folks are incapable of reaching a deeper understanding of anything because they are incapable of seeing beyond a surface, literal meaning of words written on a subject. Hence creationists latching onto words like "possibly" in scientific writings. They have never been trained to stretch their reasoning processes, so such processes have become stunted as a result.

[OPS4]

Its his french Genes.

Ops4 God Bless America!
And may Darwins followers repent.

[eagleman]

gore3000 writes,

Caught in a lie you try to continue with it through semantics and obfuscation. Ice is thicker than water. Therefore any compression of the snow will result in less than the 1 to 10 ratio of snow to water - as I already pointed out. Your 1 to 90 could have been called a mistake before this last post, but it can no longer be called that. You are intentionally making up stuff in an effort to deceive.

gore3000, *what* do you not understand about the difference between wet snow and dry snow? It was explained to you quite clearly, with a reference to boot, and you accuse him of "making stuff up in an effort to deceive"!!! Is this Christian behavior? Here is another page which proves his point: http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/envsc101/wk10glacial.htm ...from a lecture on glaciers. Various densities mentioned:

Snow - density ~0.05 g/cm3 or less for cold dry powder (density of water = 1.0), wet snow is more dense [...]

Glacial ice - density 0.85-0.9

gore3000 is the one "making stuff up".

[Doctor Stochastic]

He's still graupeling with the difference between snow and water.

[eagleman]

nmh writes,

There is NO evidence of evolution. None! Because it doesn't exist. They'll be looking for a transitional ape top human till the end of this age and come up empty handed because it is an atheist fantasy.

And yet *in this very thread* was posted the following pictures of transitional ape-humans, and no creationist has had the courage to draw the line between ape and human "kinds". I'll post it again just to show how silly nmh's comments are:

And yet cmh said:

There is NO evidence of evolution.

Is this really Christian behavior? I think cmh honestly believes what he says, but he should take a hard look at these pictures and think about whether the people who taught him had any idea of what they were talking about.

[Ichneumon]

It takes a tremendous leap of faith to buy into evolution.

You're obviously not clear on what science is all about. It's not about "leaps of faith". It's about following the evidence, seeing what fits and what doesn't, and doing reality checks on all of one's ideas and presumptions.

Goodness, it's been so discredited.

Oh really? Tell us how. This ought to be... interesting.

I suppose what amazes me is the lengths one will go to to deny the Judeo Christian God

You haven't the first clue what I'm about -- nor can you seem to wrap your mind around the concept of the countless Christians who accept that evolution fits the evidence better than anything else.

It just strikes me as funny - the vanity and ego of your kind.

Look, son, *you're* the one with enough "vanity and ego" to think that you have me all figured out, when you've managed to be wrong on every guess so far.

There are a lot of decent Christians in the world, but unfortunately there are a small subset of Christians who seem to enjoy their faith mostly as an excuse for self-congratulatory superior self-righteousness and a platform from which to insult people who displease them.

If your faith is such a good thing, try being a better example of it.

[Ichneumon]

LOL! Can you prove it ISN'T true?

Parts of it, sure. See below.

Every part of it? No, some parts describe historical events accurately.

Is every part disprovable? No, for the same reason that you can't prove there isn't a Tooth Fairy (or Zeus -- try to prove that Zeus isn't the real head honcho). This is a well-known philosophical catch-22, often (but inaccurately) described as "proving a negative". Next you'll likely ask me whether I've stopped beating my wife.

Another bit of education: Since you earlier indicated that you were unclear on the difference between a "leap of faith" and the things that are discovered by science, here's a primer: Science deals in things that can conceivably be falsified. In other words, there has to be a way to disprove a theory (and additionally of course, there must be ways to verifiably support the theory by experiment or evidence, which usually means that it must be predictive -- but I digress). A theory which can be disproven implicitly contains ways that it can be conclusively discarded if it fails to fit the evidence. In short, it's testable, and is open to ways to give it an immediate failing grade if it turns out not to be true (the flip side is not an immediate "proof", but only "continues to pass each test/evidence put to it").

This is why acceptance of evolution requires no "leap of faith" -- one can examine all the evidence for oneself and see that a) nothing yet discovered or tested proves it wrong, and b) everything so far discovered and tested (over the past 150 years) either fits the predictions of theory, or is in the "jury's still out" category (and much more of the former than the latter). It takes no "leap of faith" to look over the evidence. It just takes time and a brain and some education in a few related fields.

Your belief system, on the other hand, *does* take a "leap of faith", because there's absolutely no way it can be falsified, even in theory. And you're not only expected to believe it apart from any evidence, you're expected to believe it even if things appear to *contradict* it (begone, lying Satan!). When all else fails, you're expected to shrug and say, "well, He works in mysterious ways, if it makes no sense it's *my* fault..."

Can you also explain WHY the Bible is vindicated ALL the time in archelogy and secular history?

Please, you can't possibly be this naive. Yes, the stories in the Bible take place in and around actual historical places and mention actual historical events (like so-and-so being King, etc.) But surely you understand that this can't be taken as proof that every little detail is then necessarily true.

I can verify that there was actually an American Civil War, that Lincoln was actually President during it, and that a general named Sherman actually burned Atlanta -- but does this prove that *everything* in Gone With the Wind actually happened?

Every culture has its tales of heroic (or otherwise) adventures, which they of course most often place amid actual places and periods and events. Homer's "The Odyssey" (written in 800BC) takes place just after the Trojan Wars, and details Odysseus's voyage home to Ithaca, Greece after fighting as a soldier in Troy. The setting of the book is "vindicated ALL the time in archelogy and secular history", because there really were Trojan Wars, there really was a Troy and Ithaca. But does this make the Cyclops true?

For someone who's pretty picky about how "evolutionists" must prove every tiny little thing to your satisfaction before you'll even consider it, you seem pretty loose about what minor evidence you'll wave around as "proof" that every little thing in the Bible must be literally true.

Other people may "claim" the same thing, however it is the Bible that is true - even through secular evdience.

...as I was saying...

You: Let's not pretend that any of us have indisputably heard "what God says" directly from the source. If you hear voices, I strongly suggest you get professional help.

I'm not the one who seems to think he has heard quote "what God says" unquote, you are. I was the one who pointed out the distinct difference between "what God says" and "what some folks wrote down that *they* say He said". That's a significant difference. I'm clear on the distinction, I'm still not sure that you are.

If you want to believe that they wrote things 100% accurately and correctly and without a bit of personal agenda or error or mistaken presumption that they were speaking for God when perhaps they were writing their own beliefs, that's fine. I'm not taking issue with that.

I'm just pointing out that contrary to your claim that it's just a matter of "either you believe what God says or you don't", as you claimed, it's actually a lot less clear-cut than that, because we *don't* have direct personal knowledge of "what God says" (I know *I* don't hear those voices, anyway...), we have *indirect* claims of *other* humans about what *they* assert came to them from God (and in some cases, they say that it came to *them* indirectly as well). Suddenly the "chain of custody" of the evidence, as they say in court, becomes a lot less clearcut. Or as long as I'm using court terms, in short you're claiming direct eyewitness testimony, and I'm pointing out that in actual fact the nature of the testimony only rises to the level of hearsay.

I hope that clears things up. But I doubt it will.

Hmm, let's try this from another approach. When you wrote, "Either you believe what God says or you don't", my objection was your implicit claim that what you've got in your hand in that black-covered book is indisputably "what God says", and that all that's left to decide is whether one is going to believe what God has spoken or not.

Well when you put it that way, yeah, anyone who doesn't believe the words coming right out of God's mouth is either stupid or evil.

The problem, however, is that you've got another "have you stopped beating your wife" word trap going on there. You actually haven't yet established beyond arguable doubt that what you've got there *is* actually "what God says". Because look over there, there's a Moslem with a different book which claims the same thing. And here comes a Buddhist with another one. And a Hindu. And a Sikh. And a Mormon. And a Taoist. And... Well, you get the idea.

That's my point to you, and the reason for my earlier post. Do not presume to have first-hand knowledge of "what God says", because you do not. Your knowledge is at very best second-hand, and in many cases far more removed than that. What you have is the claims of those men who *believed* they were relaying messages from God. Which is another thing altogether. And if you're not clear on the difference, you really need to be.

I once met a man who told folks that he had messages for them from God. He seemed very sincere. He was preaching to us and to others in the park one day, as he walked around. Whenever he passed the pay phone, he would lift the receiver to see if God had any more messages for him. True story.

And no, I'm not implying the authors of the various books of the Bible all needed heavy medication. All I'm pointing out is that there is truly a large gulf between "from God's lips" and "from some guy who says he's got a message from God". Especially when there's no shortage of guys arguing with each other over which one of them has the *real* word of the *real* deity.

I have no idea how you drifted off into hearing voices

I never mentioned hearing voices. Did you perhaps hear a voice mentioning that topic?

I did, however, point out that none of us, contrary to your implication, have actually heard "what God says". His word comes to us, if it comes to us at all, through more unreliable channels than straight from the, um, horse's mouth, if you'll excuse the metaphor.

or who this Hank fellow is.

Didn't bother to click the link, I see...

You're way off topic.

No, I'm right spot on the topic you raised.

If you don't want to believe the Bible, believe in the Judeo Christian God

You presume too much. My point had nothing at all to do with what I "want" to believe or not, and everything to do with the epistemological flaw in the post of yours I responded to.

or evidence that validates what "is written" in the Bible,

I'm all ears -- what evidence?

And for reasons I've already given, the fact that real cities and rulers happen to be mentioned in the Bible doesn't do much to "validate" the entirety of the book.

While we're at it, how about the evidence that seems to *invalidate* what "is written"? For example, there's ample evidence that there was never any simultaneous worldwide flood of epic proportions.

But for heavens sake stop making a fool out of yourself.

I can't "stop" what I haven't started.

[gore3000]

Nope. Only bashing you,

Yup, that is all you do - answering a question with an insult. Stop evading the question:

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

[gore3000]

God could have used many methods to create my body, and at present, it seems that organic evolution is the best theory available.

Okay. So did God create life?

[gore3000]

That is your comment in response to a website with photos and information about pre-human skulls?

The photos are garbage, they prove nothing at all. You can see people with numerous different head shapes today, they are all human nevertheless. To show that one evolved from another you would have to date with certainty each and every one of those skulls. Most of them cannot be dated.

To show that one evolved with certainty from another, you would have to have the rest of the skeleton to see more features. Most of the skeletons for those skulls do not exist.

To show that one evolved from another you would have to know how the internal organs developed on those skulls. Fossils do not provide us with the internal organs.

To prove the gradual evolution of one from another you would need the DNA of those organisms. You cannot get DNA from fossils except in very, very exceptional circumstances.

In short, the skulls prove nothing at all. They are mostly of totally undated finds.

[HalfFull]

Ever thought that Jesus was playing to His audience? It would be much like a modern preacher saying, "and just like the prodigal son..."

this is a prime example of the tendency of some to "spiritualize" a literal event. In the passage, Jesus was refering to a SPECIFIC person (Noah) and a SPECIFIC event (the flood). Jesus was clear here...you just chose to ignore it. If you do that with the entire Bible, it becomes worthless.

Like it or not, Genesis does not square with the physical evidence

Of course, this is not true...evidence abounds of the flood....you just chose to ignore and/or try to fit this evidence into the ridiculous tale of Evolution...a religion that takes much more faith to believe in then Christianity!

[HalfFull]

This line-up of bones proves nothing.

It reminds me of the museum display showing a progression of sizes of horse bones...with the placard stating "THE EVOLUTION OF HORSES". No, it was simply a display of differnt sizes and ages of horse bones, cleverly displayed to fit the scientist's wishfull thinking.

That display of horse bones, like the skull bones, is simply a dishonest attempt ot prove the un-provable.

[JHL]

And yet *in this very thread* was posted the following pictures of transitional ape-humans, and no creationist has had the courage to draw the line between ape and human "kinds". I'll post it again just to show how silly nmh's comments are:

I can't stand it anymore. Did these skulls come with labels that said "transitional ape-humans?" The premise that these skulls are transitional ape-humans is based upon a world-view that is predisposed to evolution. Are there any other plausible explanations for these skulls other than that they are "transitional ape-humans?" I think the answer to this is yes.

I have my own non-evolutionary explanation for these skulls, and I am very satisfied with it. I simply don't have the time to get into a long, drawn-out debate on the subject.

In all the posts I've seen so far, however, there are a couple of points I haven't seen made that are worth making. One is that a belief in Creationism is not at odds with either micro-evolution or natural selection. Just because I don't believe in millions of years of evolution on Earth, doesn't mean that everything evolutions say is without merit.

Creationism, like evolution, is a position that is based on evidence. The difference is how the two camps choose to interpret the evidence.

[george wythe]

So did God create life?

Yes.

God created all the processes of the universe, including evolution and gravity.

Now answer the question you keep avoiding:

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?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Evolution-of-the-body-creation-of-the-soul placemarker.

[nmh]

You have an answer for everything but the question asked. You have proven nothing. Instead you supply mythology and more evolution propaganda NOT based on evidence. You lean heavily on the finite knowledge base of other atheists. To be an atheist, one must resort to this as you have demonstrated. All you will do is give some like myself a huge belly chuckle and fellow atheists more delusional information upon which to fantasize on and spur on the stupid idea that God doesn't exist nor has the ability to do anyting beyond your finite imagination and knowledge.

All you've succeeded in doing is make a fool of yourself. You are too blind to see it and too much pride to acknowledge it.

[nmh]

Next you'll be touting "evidence" that there are little green men on the moon.

Truly, you grieve God by failing to use your God given brain.

Something does not come out of nothing as evolutions wish so desperately to believe. Faulty dating systems don't add substance to your wild claims either.

Of course you don't wish to admit that your premise is that this is all there is hence, no role for the Judeo Christian God. According to you, He just couldn't get His act together. He needed millions and millions of years, or is it billions now to create an ape. The odds of that happening defy common sense alone. The human body did not evolve by chance. It is incredibily sophisticated and egotistical doctors still don't understand its complexity. Yet, you wish to believe all this popycock because it suits your atheist outlook.