The Story of Meritocratic Jesus
Take note of the following before you comment :
(i) Background knowledge on meritocracy is needed to fully appreciate this issue.
(ii) No schools? This issue does not really cover any particular school, and is only an one-off instance of such. (more of education & society)
(iii) As usual, our legal disclaimer applies.
(iv) Parallel discussion on the issue by throughglassdarkly on the Notebook project.
(v) Christians who are offended and insulted, please take the time to read the STEP BY STEP walkthrough of meritocratic jesus..better than the DVD... Which was intended to be praising your religion! Some of you did not appear to pick that up. Also some discussion on why Meritocracy is bad.
(vi) On another note , do continue your support for charity organizations in singapore.
- En & Hou
Christmas Special << | Happy New Year < | > An ACSian Will Die Today
posted by En and Hou at 8:53 PM
Xpress cartooning by two students, En & Hou
reflecting the Singapore
education system and its schools. 
133 Comments:
ahaha i'm the 1st this time .. hahaha lame as usual:p
You guys are really funny! All you are missing is a scene where a famous entertainer puts his/her head into a lion's mouth...
great job on this one! best one yet!
Hmm....rather sensitive issue (on using a religious figure), you guys might get flamed.
great job! maybe some day u can get urself a space in the sunday times for your comics. x)
nice! this is one which doesnt flame any sch.(LOL)and meanwhile reflects on the society and make us laugh too. =D gd job!
haha... loved the sarcasm...
:)
but i noticed that the roman soldier's 'SKIRTS' were quite... bare... haha the soldiers 'zao geng' -ed!!!
and btw this comic isnt an attack on christianity...
as u can see they labelled it as ANOTHER jesus and used tonnes of sarcasm to show that it isnt reflective of the REAL jesus who shows his compassion and love for the people...
furthermore, MERITOCRATIC jesus is just an analogy or parallel to some other ppl we ALL noe... heheh
lol omgwtfbbq
huh dis might b dangerous cos of the religious relevance ehh tsk tsk
but why doesnt it gossip abt schools anymore?!
I see you've drawn inspiration from "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus". :)
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
Quite funny, and I was amused by how the NKF was thrown in as well (Why no caricature of T. T. Durai?)
TiTus Duraius. There were no Indians in Roman Judea. Might be hard to draw him.
careful, dangerous ground. wait kena charge for sedimentation.
wait.
sedition, i mean.
Haha...
Denarii...you play RTW?
ok.. now's a change on the topic.. but i still prefer the ones on s'pore schs! yay!
i think u guys are getting prettty boring... the last few strips have been nothing but really really boring..
hey be careful guys, reference to religious figures (even tho it might be parallel to someone else) is very sensitive...
top 20!
Yup I don't feel comfortable with this issue...sorry.
But although it wasn't pleasing, I myust admit that TiTus Duraius was really amusing concept.
not as interesting as usual :(
I like this one!!! And I guess it's kinda. more interesting when you're into christianity
Good job guys funny as always =)
Screw sensitivity! I make fun of religions all the time. It's 'cos people who take themselves too seriously deserve to be mocked. Prime examples are the fundamentalist religious, the government, and Singaporeans.
Two thumbs up, by the way. This is not as laugh-out-loud funny, but I found it more witty.
Rather blasphemous, don't you think.. Didn't see the need to link the subject to a religion
En & Hou (or is it juz Hou now?), quite a formidable storyline wif many satirical overtones, spanning the range of meritocracy, religion and history.
The animation stands out if only for the yellow turfs of hair. Blonds! What a pleasant distraction from the quotidian Asian jet-black, I tot!
Good effort!
I don't really think its disrespectful to other religions.. especially since meritocratic jesus is a totally different jesus.
Even the roman executer is deliberately different, his name is pontius pilot, not pontius pilate.
Regarding links to religion, its supposed to show how meritocracy today is sometimes a false doctrine , that is used to justify every elitist change in the educational system..almost to an extent where you hold it as high an ideal like a religion.
We tried thinking of other names to avoid sedition..somewhat.
We considered other names like Apollonius of Tyana... (one of the other prophets of the time), but not too many of you know who is that.
and yes, i am still here.:)
-En
I'm wondering why the quality of your drawings are sometimes so good and sometimes so poor. Not very good drawings this week I'm afraid.
yea don't deal with religion, it's a very sensitive issue.
even though you proclaim it to be a different jesus, there's a word called,
SATIRE. -Z
pretty good stuff,
but this time the stuff's more mediacore rather than fantastic. hahaha.
BUT STILL.
wonderful job as usual.
I'm pretty sure you guys are sick of hearing about the christian remarks, so I shan't go into that.
but it's wrong. X)) so yar. haha.
for a start, putting other schools' name in vain in the name of fun and laughter can be tolerated. but certainly NOT a post putting another religion's God's name in vain. i am certainly very disappointed in how you people over here here have shifted over from making use of schools to make loud issues to the use of religious icons to make known your purpose.
i am very insulted by this post, me being a christian. please remove this post if you have some conviction. thanks.
Ironic. I'd have thought that Christians would be most pleased by this strip since it reinforces what their religion is supposed to teach.
You can't please everybody, so there's no point trying!
hello. i don't like the fact that u people are using God's name in vain. honestly, your previous submissions were rather humourous AT FIRST. but as time passed, it didnt turn out that funny. for instance, how would u feel if someone constantly insults your school? yes, we can joke and laugh about our flaws IF THEY ARE TRUE. but some of the things you said/draw is so UNTRUE. this is how rumours spread you know. and about this comic strip, it is mocking the christian religion. do you think you all are doing any good by doing so? i certainly don't think so. please be more matured and sensitive to other people's views. i suggest you all take this comic strip off your website now. thanks.
I feel this comic strip is more of symbolic than of actually of any religious relevance. An open mind and a understanding of the situation at hand is needed. However, although it is alright to use a little religious symbol once in a while, (like the taoist master), to use it in an entire strip is treading on thin ice.
But I felt its a little weird that the comic has strayed from a one about school systems. Perhaps it is also criticising the elite meritocratic system and over-concentration of political power.
There are some very hot ideas you can regarding the IP systems, JC orientations etc. You can even capitalise on ghost stories in schools. heez
Comic writers have ups and downs. Perhaps the j2 pressure is squeezing your brain juices dry. haha. keep up the good work! :)
ex-nj guy
Oh well fuck it. It is only after all a comic strip. So leave it at that and enjoy the satire and laugh it off.
If you cant, i suggest u juz migrate. :)
Um, did anyone even bother to read the parallel discussion?
Regards,
Hou.
"Regarding links to religion, its supposed to show how meritocracy today is sometimes a false doctrine , that is used to justify every elitist change in the educational system..almost to an extent where you hold it as high an ideal like a religion."
are u implying something else about christianity here?
This is terrible... i never had to do a step by step review of the "Point" of a comic before..
This ruins all the fun of being able to discover it for yourselves.
- En
If people are offended they shouldn't read it.
It's just like how people complain R21 movies offend their morals.
Don't like don't watch lor.
to the critics:
i must applaud the comic writers bold move in potraying such an in-depth topic with a religious overtone. Singaporeans are way too politically correct to speak their minds these days. They feel uncomfortable when addressing issues pertaining to race, religion, sex and pretty much everything EXCEPT food.
to En & Hou
I like this satire very much. It has brought much insights.
-
kifo
Like how fundies are threatening freedom over in US, I am glad to see fundies here doing the same on a *comic-strip*.
-
i totally agree with you, and to think the fundamentalists are fighting over some Bible versions and claiming KJV as inerrant when it is only just a version. Heresy!
I understand what the comic is actually pointing at. But still, it's using God's name in vain. I'm a Cath. I'm not very comfortable with this strip as compared to others though.
As for free thinkers who commented, I think it is very important for you guys to respect religions. No one is comfortable with someone using your religion to do a comic strip like that.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
A parody site on the American Right and also fundamentalist Christianity. En & Hou should have heard about it?
Look Mr Devout! I am Catholic too albeit a non-practising one!
IT is JUST a comic strip. If we can't take jibes at anything here save for the Queen Mother of England, then I say we are not living life.
We might as well be born deaf, mute and blind. Devoid of senses to dabble in anything
How's that?
The main focus of the comic seems to me to be on the flaws of meritocracy.
The use of a religious figure (religious figures tend to branded as people who have a certain world view and represent it, advocate it) to stand for those in society who support and practise meritocracy seems to be an artistic technique (for lack of a better word). One definitely needs a character as a symbol, and religious figures do the job pretty well.
Personally, as a Christian, I find this pretty acceptable. Well, probably since I took it with a pinch of salt. Rationale being, you can’t expect non-believers to obey rules like ‘thou shalt not use the name of the Lord in vain’.
All the same, it wasn’t a very comforting nor pleasing thought to know that some character in a cartoon strip is going around preaching something quite contradictory to what your faith expounds, yet shares a similarity, in terms of names, with your God.
Can you christians PLEASE BE MORE OPEN MINDED and STOP DWELLING IN YOUR BIBLES. If God is so great, there will be no suffering, seriously all-good and all-powerful do not co-exist.
I think some people should cut the 'I'm holier than thou' act. The authors have explicitly explained its distinction from Christianity, the religion itself. So look who's using God's name in vain by pulling the wrong strings? Don't judge others cos the measures by which you use to judge others will be used against yourself.
hi en and hou,
judging from the comments above, some people were a little uncomfortable with your latest strip on "meritocratic jesus".
i must commend both of you though, for the cool "TiTus Duraius" bit ((: it was really good.
i know you two probably wont take down the strip after all's been done and said since it is after all, your site, but anyway, i still feel this responsibilty to inform you on religions and Christianity.
not sure if you're one of those, but atheists usually think Christianity is a bit aggressive (due to the street ministry) and perhaps some "ugly Christians" they've seen in their lives. some poeple dont even know what Christ did for us. let's ask ourselves a honest question.
Who (non believer) actually sees the "terms and conditions" below the post, and CLICKS on the link to studentsnotebook to read about why Christians should feel offended ?
i mean, its not actually "my business" why Christians should feel offended right ? (non believer POV)
most people i know just come to the site, laugh about the topic, the stereotypes, the drawings, the relevance (more so if it targets your school). hardly anybody goes to your sister project studentsnotebook (no offence there; but its all too texty)
back to the Christianity thing. those in the latter group (who dont know anything about Christ) would take your comic at face value; that is, Jesus was really meritocratic and get all sorts of weird ideas in their heads.
another point i would like to bring up is the past success of your comics, and not this one. schools in general are a more "laughable" subject. perhaps it would be the fact that most of us dont like school (assumption) and we're somewhat curious what or how the school name brands us (in my case, the "Raffles" brand name gives people the conception we're bookish or smart. or simply an "elitist".)
it's like, reading your comic on the rggirl declaring her love for the riguy. and i know a schoolmate perhaps, who in a sense, is dropping all kinds of hints to the riguy that she likes. it is indeed quite enjoyable, to ask her to go to this site and read that particular comic. perhaps tease her a little (not to that bad extent; just friendly teasing).
religion on the other hand, has a "Creator". the "Creator" is a revered symbol/creature/thing/whatever. it would be perhaps insulting the someone(?) you love/respect the most (perhaps mom and dad). it wouldnt be a comfortable feeling now, would it ?
unless you can find a girl in my school who's SO proud of Raffles that she cant bear to hear ANYTHING bad about him, then would the aforementioned point prove invalid.
sorry about this long comment but i really think you guys should just slack off the religious topics. which includes but not limited to, the more common ones we have in singapore.
again i commend you on the good hint about our "recent" NKF saga, and the past few comics done on rg. it was welldone ((:
perhaps you could do more stuff on elitists schools; or even an "outcast" from a elitist-branded school because he is against elitism or smth like that.
yours,
shel
sorry its me again.
just a little side note to what anonymous at 9th jan 8:25pm SGT said about "all-good and all-powerful" cannot co-exist. perhaps i should remind you a bit: it wasnt God who brought sin into this world, it was man. and also, you have heard the saying "Trials which do not kill tha man, only makes him stronger." or something along those lines. say if everything was all nice and good and good, you think we'd still want God in our lives ?
putting it into a school based concept, it would be like, if you had NO exams, NO stress, all you do is to have fun in school, would you really TRULY appreciate the holidays ? more so just after the exams, when you can suddenly just SLACK after perhaps months of stressing and cramming.
think of it another way, without bad things (trials, obstacles), would you learn how to value success ?
everyone would just grow complacent.
yours,
shel
nice one.
I love TiTus.
@Shel
You do have valid arguments like mocking a popular figure especially a beloved one like Jesus.
But it is a comic strip and people must realise this as they do when they read Peanuts, Wizard of ID syndicated comics in the papers.
There could be parallels they draw but seriously if u were an atheist or an agnostic, religion may juz be a SHAM. Who invented religion in the first place? Have we traced its origins? Who were the writers of the Bible? Can we make sense of GEnesis or is it juz pure mythology?
Even Bibles and religions acknowledge the "faith" part of our beliefs, otherwise rationally, concepts of "God" and "religion" may be a wee bit hard to swallow for some.
Just expressing a viewpoint here. If you wanna make a hooha outta this, well fine then. I am game.
I like to address yr aside on the school system and all. I can agree with some of it. BUt to each his own. Some cant study well under stress like we do in our system abt grades and exams.
For one, I can't. I am the curious and adventurous sort. If I had been born into Darwin's times, I think I wld have taken off marvellously well where thinking, curiousity and adventure would have made me come up with astounding scientific theories or thinking like I have expounded the FANE and NWO in my blogs.
The exams and stress did nothing for us generally thereafter. We have not produced a crop of top-notch scientists or discoveries, have we?
If we were all so exam-successful like as proven in the GCEs, why havent we moved on further up the ladder of entrepreneurship and science? We have far and few but let us not attribute this to a small population pool. Greece had smaller but look how many philosophers and thinkers of its time it had produced. Mind-staggering I wld say.
pretty blasphemous, but i take only a little offence. A little only!
it's all in good fun anyway! really clever parallelism. the hidden meaning behind it raised some pretty good points.
Well, it's a webcomic, it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Not as hilarious this time, but more witty and that is always enjoyable :P
If you did really offend anybody with this post, I do not think it would be man... and certainly not us christians.
But I for one believe, and saw that you were hardly trying to insult my faith... at least from the way I read it.
Truth be told, this is something I tend to agree with, where sometimes we christians go so far from our purposes that we create satire and parodies of Jesus that are hardly anything that He stood for.
I'm sure at times we christians have created many false "Jesuses" in the course of our checkered history.
And a sprit of "Meritocratic Jesus" does exist in some of our numbers (and i believe in some extent in many of us)... how many of us believe that God would only accept us if we show ourselves to be of a certain spirtual merit or standard? Or that people who don't meet this standard are somehow "inferior" people?
How many times have we held back grace from those who needed it the most, shut our ears to the cries of the needy, and given the world a picture that Jesus was only for those people who "have it together"?
I don't know, but in many ways I am not offended by the comic as it shows many things to be true and wrong in our numbers that we must constantly fight against.
So yeah, instead of getting angry, wake up.
As I said earlier on, this comic is in itself a parody of "Supply Side Jesus":
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
Whether we like it or not, there are elements of the Christian faith who are guilty of the attitudes as expressed in the comic. As much as there is a need to respect each others' religions, I feel that mutual tolerance does not mean we are exempt from legitimate criticisms.
"Did you see the latest WWJD bracelets? I am offended by those blasphemous heretics! How dare they compare themselves to the Lord and insinuate that they are following in his footsteps? NO ONE CAN BE WORTHY!!!111ONE~!!!"
Btw, the Queen Mother is dead. It's disrespectful to insult the dead ;)
I won't bother to debate Christian Mythology in this thread :)
Hai~Ren: It's a homage to SSJ, not a parody! And SSJ itself is a satire rather than parody.
I have been reading your blog and I do have to say as much as I like the drawings, some of the contents were pretty much lame. However, not sure if it was intentional, I liked the way you brought in Romans and Christians since they have an age old feud. Something very intellectual indeed, however what has the roman got to do with the other stuff?
There are a stuff a zillion times more 'offending' than this. I think the authors have already made themselves clear they did not mean any disrespect and it is JUST a comic. Fictional. Not-real. Bluff one. As they said 'we make stuff up.' Go bug some anti-christianity site instead. Its more worth it.
most thought-provoking entry by far.. good job
Some comments on some things you noted:
If u were an atheist or an agnostic, religion may juz be a SHAM.
- I think you included this sentence to state you were speaking from an atheist viewpoint, thus the redundancy of the word 'if u were'.
Who invented religion in the first place?
- The religious would say religion isn't invented, and therefore this question may be irrelevant, from their viewpoint.
Have we traced its origins?
- As before, the religious would say that God is just there, rather than originating from some (higher) cause. Another invalid question that the atheist/skeptic could call out without reply.
Who were the writers of the Bible?
- If the Bible had writers this does not mean that the Bible is a SHAM, unless the writer can be verified to be of disputable reputation. Generally a weak question to 'disprove' Christianity.
Even Bibles and religions acknowledge the "faith" part of our beliefs.
- If think about it, you apply "faith" in several mundane activities, such as believing that the bus you board, or the lift that you take, would be safe. You also apply faith that, for instance, Newton got it spot-on with his laws (which Einstein showed to be in fact an approximation) when studying physics for instance.
If I had been born into Darwin's times, I think I wld have taken off marvellously well where thinking, curiousity and adventure would have made me come up with astounding scientific theories or thinking like I have expounded the FANE and NWO in my blogs.
- There are plenty of opportunities for curiousity, adventure, and creativity in academia. By this I assume you are a secondary/jc student, where discipline and much rote-learning is necessary to establish the foundations. It is after such foundations have been laid that the spirit of learning which you propound can be released.
The exams and stress did nothing for us generally thereafter. We have not produced a crop of top-notch scientists or discoveries, have we? If we were all so exam-successful like as proven in the GCEs, why havent we moved on further up the ladder of entrepreneurship and science?
- You claim direct causalty between success in exams and top-notch scientists & entrepreneurs, but this may be so. More research, perhaps by running regression on societal data and some form of measurement measuring "top-notch scientists & entrepreneurs", to ascertain the relationship or significance, to put it statistically, on exams and scientists/entrepreneurs.
- Furthermore, this reply to the earlier post remarking on the usefulness of stress to help us appreciate rest is somewhat off-tangent. I cannot see how exams not producing scientists/entrepreneurs leads to us not appreciating rest as much as if we were not in a stressful environment, not that I agree with the latter argument wholly.
We have far and few but let us not attribute this to a small population pool. Greece had smaller but look how many philosophers and thinkers of its time it had produced.
- I think you need to be more consistent with your argument, because you first used scientists and entrepreneurs, and then shifted to philosophers in the latter part of the argument. Perhaps you have just answered why we don't have a number of philosophers proportionate to Greece.
@Shel
Why on earth did God even create human beings? So he could watch us suffer? And here's another saying, since u like to use them, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
You may call me an ignorant atheist or what-so-ever, but just for your information, i DID believe in God, however things have changed.
So what if everything was just a lie? What if one day your dead and there's no God? Or rather, what if God is not what you expect him/her to be?
@ anonymous directing question @ shel...
first and foremost before i comment, there are some things you should know abt the viewpoints of a christian (namely me):
1) we believe that GOD created whole universe up to the electrons in the carbon atoms in your flesh... what makes you think that you'll be able to understand someone so much exceedingly smarter than you?
2) we SHOULDN'T complain about suffering on earth and that God doesnt care... HE DOES CARE AND LOVEs EACH AND EVERYONE OF US.. you have to know that life on earth isnt exactly very important in the BIG PICTURE. Life on earth here is more of a test. the saying goes that if you love someone, let them go and if they love you, they will find their way back to you. God doesnt want to create us to be his SLAVES.. he gives us a choice to choose and to realise how magnificent he is... that is what life on earth is abt.. its like a test to let people know about God and to love him in return. sufferings are to make us stronger and better people if we do survive through it.. and in the christian faith, we believe that even if we do not survive the sufferings, we will still ascend into heaven to be with God.
3) so you will now complain that if God wants us to come back to him, how can we if some of us dont even know about him? It would be quite useless for God to create us with knowledge all about him coz then we'll all know that hez the alpha and omega and will all go flocking to him... so its the duty of those who have chosen to believe him to spread the good news to the others.
4)in my pt of view, God is the almighty, omnipotent, Loving, superintelligent, magnificent one.. its hard to imagine but he knows everything and hez smart wont go corrupt.. why should he? hez all powerful DUH... he also wants to walk beside all of you and to be your buddy; to share your woes and pain... its only if you'll let him...
5) 'what if its all a lie?'
one word : FAITH
i trust the one i love
need i say more? please understand...
Can those religious ones come out and tell us just why you think this strip is insulting to your religion when it is in fact using your religion's mores as a superior and more desirable credo to live by?
@agagooga
Look, if the Queen Mother is dead, she is dead. No respects lost. If u had read the history of some monarchs, you wld have realised the atrocities some had committed. So get on wif it. They arent some supreme beings to be revered, dead or alive.
@other arguments
(1) I dont see how "If u were" is redundant, and yes I am speaking from tat viewpoint
(2) OF coz the religious wld say tat religion wasnt invented but if had read the development of how most religions began, you wld have realised that it has morphed over time. It began wif mythology and paganism and went right on with religion.
(3)Of coz from the religious' point of view, it wld be invalid. Tat wld be precisely their point tat GOd was there juz so based on "faith" and belief. But if u read the ontological arguments, they are still inconclusive and raging on the existence of God. Can u prove it, dude?
(4) It cld be a sham NOT BECAUSE of the credibility of the writers but because it is said they wrote on inspiration and dictation by GOD. This has been debated as a ridiculous position, theologically. And the writers wrote in a Hebrew language which may have been mistranslated ionto Greek later. The writers were interpreting events pertaining to the period of their time.
(5)That is precisely it too dude. Thanks for augmenting my arguments all the way. Thus everything is based on "faith" with no real proof it is right or wrong.
(6)Name me some opportunities. I agree that the foundation must be laid. But it shld have been laid earlier from middle and high school and proceeded on to a higher plane at the universities.
(7)You have not read it right dude. I DID NOT claim causalty between exams and scientific significance but more the opposite. I said tat exams had not produced the desired effect of exploration which rightly shld be the domain of scientific discovery.
(8) The last examples had no correlation with the earlier scientists part. They were two different categories. One to show our no-show for science and the other our no-show for philosophers and thinkers.
Great!
@nik
So only the people who truly believe in God get to enjoy in heaven after life?
What happens to atheists after life then? Do we all go to hell just because we do not believe in God?
If that's the case, does that make God any good?
Anyway, you have not answered the question that I have direct to Shel.
I'm was saying IF everything was a lie. Keyword: IF.
Not only did you not answer the question, but you straight away jump into conclusion that God has to be real, by saying you have faith in what you believe in.
And just in case you didnt get the KEYWORD, it's IF.
theres no IF
:)
if He doesnt exist, are u to say that all of us were created juz by CHANCE? some ppl claim that the probability of it occuring in the infinite outer space is still high enough to be possible..
but let me give ya this analogy
It is raining. The precipitate isnt rain, but its the parts which make up a clock. are you to say if this continues for an infinite amount of time, a fully operational clock will be produced? hmm hard to believe ya? what moer an entire universe?
and what kind of question is IF and IF IF IF IF IF our god doesnt exist? ERGH if were true then too bad for the whole world -.-"
and to ur question:
''What happens to atheists after life then? Do we all go to hell just because we do not believe in God?
If that's the case, does that make God any good?''
think of heaven as a members only sactuary. wer'e free to join or turn away. God's sayin: come, only in me will you have eternal life. but if you decide to walk away from him, its your choice. God doesnt wanna force you to love him.. its against the idea of LOVE..
if he does so then wad difference does it make den making us as programmed robots?
"and what kind of question is IF and IF IF IF IF IF our god doesnt exist? ERGH if were true then too bad for the whole world -.-" "-nik
Well, is it really bad if there's no God around?
Here's another question.
There's an atheist and a wholehearted christian, who firmly believes in God. Unfortunately, the athesist happen to be the better person, meaning he does more good deeds than the christian. And don't be mistaken, the christian isn't a bad guy, well just, not as good as the atheist. So when both of them have left this world, does it mean that only the christian get to get into heaven? And if the atheist does not get into heaven, where does he end up in?
"if he does so then wad difference does it make den making us as programmed robots?"-nik
Well have you seen the matrix? Just an analogy for you to ponder over. But of course, it's not exactly the same, it's just that we're been governed by a superior, that is, God.
Your sincerely,
That Anonymous Guy
guys... as much as i appericate your views... this isn't really the place to discuss worldviews... because we all know that there are many little people on both sides that will use this to get their personal kicks by getting in their potshots.
i hate to see more misunderstanding and hate spread from this, for i think in the end the Student's Sketchpad was made for a good purpose (though told in mean ways :), let's work towards that spirit.
prehaps we all could have a good talk about this over a cup of tea one, and an honest talk at that.
heh.
to answer a question though, i don't think any self-respecting christian thinks that he is saved by being "good"... i am certainly not that good person, and there are plenty of athiests who i am sure are more deserving of heaven then me.
but then again, i feel it's more of a case of beggars who all have far less then the required amount to buy the entry ticket to a place.
some beggars may be more "deserving" of entering, having more money but the question is... does anybody really deserve to enter?
of course, then the kindy owner of this hotel comes out and says that he'll foot the bill for all of the beggars. everybody's welcome and nobody's excluded...
the onus it seems... rests on the beggars to decide if they want to pay the entry on their own cash or takes up the owner's offer and let him foot the bill.
the reality of the actual issue of course, is far more complex then that, but that's a grossly crude allegory of what i think it's like.
Ironically, yes... i don't think God is meritocratic... and i have compelling reasons to believe He has given us am amazing amount of freedom to dicate our own wills, as opposed to this world being a matrix... so much freedom indeed, we have the freedom to screw it up if we liked.
Maybe the matrix analogy was bad.
Here's another, imagine we're animals being kept in the zoo. The animals have the freedom and will to do anything they want within their compound, however is that really freedom? Of course, the zookeeper, in this case God, do not ill-treat the animals, but when the animals try to escape from captivity, what do the zookeepers do? I'm sure you know what will happen to the poor animals. Thus my point is that, though we have the freedom but it's just to an extent, for we can't break free from the control of a higher being.
i think u are plain boring. so bored u hv to pick on religion. y dun u pick on ur family? or ur relatives? or ur own country? duh.... plain boring.
Hi amon, thanks for the quick reply.
1) The point of disagreeing with the use of 'if u were' was that you were challenging Christians from a purely atheist point of view, while at the same time the phrase sounded as if it were not, possibly misleading the less alert readers.
2) I have read books about religions' origins. To say that "it began wif mythology and paganism and went right on with religion" isn't entirely true, because there are conflicting accounts. For instance, another model suggests event --> memory --> myth --> religion. With such diverse theories I am surprised that you stick to one so avidly. Furthermore, as with many similar such writings, it speculates, rather than proves. I find it difficult to accept such writings as acceptable arguments by themselves.
3) The religious would give an experiential proof, which is hard to translate into a rational argument, and yet remains real, though to the individual, or individuals with similar experiences. I would like to point out that ontological arguments are also 'raging' on the "un-existance" of God, and neither can you, or anyone else, prove otherwise.
4) I have not encountered any theological stand against the Bible being the divinely inspired Word of God - it would be quite ridiculous that theologians stab themselves wouldn't it? There is, on the other hand, ample historical continuity and consistency in the Bible.
5) Faith is therefore something not uncommon, so to speak against its use, whether in religion or science or mundane activity, could possibly be unwarranted.
6) Yes, the foundations are laid at middle/high school level, and proceed on to a 'higher plane' at the university level. As i mentioned before, the opportunities are in academia.
7) "exams had not produced the desired effect of exploration" - this sounds like exams --> scientific exploration, which implies causalty between exams and exploration as i mentioned initially.
8) I am unceratin as to how what you said about exams, philosophy, and exploration relates to Shel's post about examinations.
Amon, i think we can go on and on and on about religion without agreeing on a fulfilling conclusion, just like religious debates go on and on outside of this comment page. I think we should cool it, respect each others' views, and direct our efforts more on productive research. I suggest the same for other visitors.
To the other posters: kindly google your answers on common topics like "why does God allow suffering" and "free will and God" before posting, because these topics have been discussed amply on other websites - there is no need for unnecessary duplication here.
Likewise, I think the Christians could post links to better articulated writings on the net in reply to others' skepticisms. (Perhaps something some would feel I am guitly of not doing, admittedly)
Lastly, there are plenty of arguments from the pro and anti Christian camps. Different arguments convince different people. Rather than flame one another why not start understanding what you don't believe, rather than enforcing your own beliefs? It would be more productive and mature this way. By the way the comments have been going I would be rather disappointed with the level of mature discussion in Singapore, as a foreign observer.
Absolutely brilliant and hillarious.
But more importantly, from the sentiments of (some of) the commentors, I'm glad to see that the Religious Left is not unaware of the problem the fundamentalist right is posing to religion as a whole.
Well let me add on to all these.
For Christians, how many of us/you have really examined the reasons for being one?
I mean I know some Catholics (myself being one) who attend Church every Saturday or Sunday as an obligation. It is ritualistic, saying yer own prayers, etc. Period. Praying for yrself and yer immediate family and relatives possibly. Maybe frens. Period.
I don't think it goes beyond tat. Praying for world peace and harmony? How many of us actually do tat?
Even if it is for family, it wld be for health, peace and prosperity. The last to me is absolutely contrarian.
We r treating religion as we are worshipping the FU LU SHOU! Some people visit temples and pray for precisely the same thing - to prosper in business dealings. Period.
So is religion fostering anything else. Like kindness to yer fellow men? or wateva?
For some other evangelical movements, as some of u have noted , cld be militant and preachy and Jesus seems to be the only salvation.
And it is also for the young, hip and trendy. A place to socialise, network or cut deals? I don't know. Somehow the true spirit of fellowship may be lost?
I have attended charismatic and evangelical services. It is no more than screams and exhortations from the pulpits sometimes.
With no real messages, as far as i can see, with the hat passing round for donations.
To U
Ok. I guess if the debate rages, we cannot prove or disprove the existance or un-existance of God then right. Which is precisely what I say! So those with a religion cannot similarly impose on the atheists .
That is why I am agnostic, not atheist nor religious.
Which brings me to what I have been saying along. It is better we base our dealings on the person alone, devoid of economic,gender, religious, racial, language discrimination.
Hence it is my conclusion tat if we had reverted to the nomadic, prehistorical times of our STONE AGE ancestors (where universal , we wld probably have been spared wars (physical or metaphorical) based on gender, sexual orientation, racial, religious, economic and ideological differences.
These have divided us all. Race, color, economy, sexual orientation, gender and ideology.
Period.
My Catholic version of the Bible, in its preface, states very clearly that the Word of God is not a dictation of God through Man's hands.
It said that the prophets were inspired by God to write and the writers then saw events through their own eyes.
Add education as another dividing rather than unifying element which rightfully, the latter shld have been the aim of education.
What abt discriminating on the basis of marital status? Singles cant buy this or tat, despite being a citizen.
And if u gt a flat direct liao, cannot buy another direct and gt resale levy penalty?This is discrimination.
And discriminating on sexual orientation? Gays cant have civil unions or gay-marriages?
So arent our government policies anti-citizen which you probably will not experience now or yet as u r still of school-going age but you may have first hand experience in some.
N(A) students can skip the NA exams and head for Os for some students who want to and can. This wasn't possible then.
Students in NT not being able to do subjects of their choice until now tat is.
So if government policies are anti-citizen ( and I have experienced a couple in the HDB buying arena) then I shall be anti-state, shouldn't I?
According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm Catholics still believe in the God-inspired Bible. The same for Christians and Jews. Perhaps by "dictation through man's hands" means that (just guessing) God did not dictate every single word to the writer, but inspired him through the passing on of ideas, since the word 'dictate' was used'.
On discrimination:
I believe that society in the past was a lot less complex, and class differences, if any, could not exist. One possible reason could be due to the overwhelming agrian nature of such societies.
Also, it is necessary to discriminate to a certain extent, at least at a policy level, e.g. reward those who have put in the effort to contribute to society, but at the same time an inclusive society needs to level out these differences, for reasons of maintaining the social fabric. Very tricky.
Excuse me, I don't know what u mean by "contribute". It is a very ambiguous term.
Singles do not contribute? I think it has nothing to do with contribution. Contribute what?
It is discrimination, pure and simple. A person has to be taken for what he/she is. THis term is as vague as the "meritocratic' one
I pray hope u dont become a discrimnee yrself one fine day.
I wld not want to be on the receiving end but on the giving end like a discriminator.
Gd Luck!
Hahaha... I'm Christian. Every system has its downfall. ;) Meritocracy is perhaps best for a small country which needs quick progression... say, like Singapore?
The quick progression has meant other consequences. Because it was quick to come, so too it will be quik to go.
We did it in one generation, so too shall we be gone in another.
If the powers-to-be are entrenched for too long, there is general paralysis, complacency, arrogance and inertia.
This has to change with the coming elections.
You know the cool thing about all this... is that it sparked so much serious debate... shows that Singaporeans are not as passive a bunch as people would like to paint... some of us anyway...
But I think there is one thing that the serious religious and the serious nonreligious agree on... as in serious I mean these people are seriously interested in life and what it really means instead of living a superfical life in things that don't really matter (of which there is no lack in any quarter).
Now, both sides agree that there is a problem with the world now that we see it as.
We both agree that somehow, the ultimate solution to all this (provided you believe that there's a point to all this), is not here, not now, but lies somewhere else, a something that must be fought and sought for.
Even the most ardent of both sides believe in it... from the notion of a creation of the utopia of "supermen" the athetistic marxists regimes tried to create to the eventual return of the King that the Christians believe in.
The game I feel, is still out on the field. I for one am a theist, and indeed at that a Christian, to admit that to the first.
And the rational aspect of my faith is something I have mulled much over. I do have compelling logical reasons to believe (indeed, my alligence to Christianity was taken in weight of evidence.)
Well, my point is... I think we should all seek the truth. Even as a Christian I still do that, and shouldn't be afraid to ask difficult and challenging questions about what we really believe in. For above all, absolute truth must be sought.
I think we all have some notion that absolute truth exists (even those who think everything is relative). That is the very reason we even have something argue about, that we all hold some notion that there is a separate, ultimate truth that exists beyond us… and of course that everybody's idea has some notion of truth in them… just that some people's ideas get closer to this ultimate truth then others. Why else do we even argue?
In the light of that, I think no matter what points are raised, everyone should show an unwavering, fair and uncompromising approach towards finding the truth. If somebody can convince me that a better and righter way exists beyond the Christianity that I now tote as the answer to life… I should gladly take that path. It may seem extreme but that's the attitude that we should all take towards our faiths, be in faith in a God or faith (yes you need faith to be an atheist as well) in anything else that we think is the Tao of things.
If the bridge you build is true, then you won't be afraid to let heavy trains cross it. If you only allow yourself to be exposed to cars and people... then maybe you don't really know, or believe in what you say is the truth at all.
So yeah… erm, it's good to talk.
This is a thread that affirms religous censorship. Its not the strip, its what comes after.(i.e. this thread of comments)
But thats not what i want to say.
En&hou. This isn't satire, its wholesale copy of someone else's concept and idea. You didn't even change some jokes from 'supply side jesus'. It may not be copyright infringement, but it certainly hurts your artistic integrity as producers of original and incisive
satire.
Please consider the relevence of jesus as a vehicle to exact a critism of meritocracy. The morally barren utilitaian principles of supply and demand are a clear opposite to a moral figure of jesus. Jesus vs a social system of meritocracy.... think about it guys. I'm sure you can do better than that.
Political satire takes more than just cute cartoons and contention, it should be clear in what its is saying. I don't think you guys were. Copying stuff and doing a botched job is sooo singaporean.
I'm saying this because i really like your stuff so think out your work and keep on going. :)
And also... and the inspiration of the bible is a mysterious notion that believers struggle with. It was certainly not dictated word for word and somehow we do have the faint notion that the human element served more then just a pen.
Of course, this opens up the bible to criticism that it is not inerrant, for flawed man was involved in the process. But this criticism, while it warrants attention... is perhaps a trite simplistic.
There are compelling rational and evidential reasons to believe that the bible is the result of a supernatural process, of which would depend of course, if you believe that supernatural intervention is possible at all.
But if you didn't believe in it at all then the whole issue of inspiration is moot in the first place as brining up the issue of inspiration implies that one believes in the supernatural.
Worse, if one ends up with the extreme of getting a Dan Brown treatment of the entire issue, which is really a dilution of a bizarre marriage of trying to tie in the supernatural with the natural, without really being faithful to both. Frankly I found his treatment of the creation of antimatter in "Demons and Angels" as inspiring faith a hilarious misunderstanding of how most modern Christians reconcile science with God. The issue is really philosophical and ontological, and how it relates to science, and not materialist-reductionism as he touts it.
Of course, let's drop the supernatural issue entirely from the question of examining the bible… one would still find that it does exhibit many interesting qualities as a piece of historical writing that warrants a deeper look into it… Much deeper then trying to write it off as inherently errant or no different from other historical writings that is. The signs might be… interesting.
And even if one does not believe that it's true it still warrants a strong plausible, and rational alternative explanation that trumps the supernatural one.
One inevitably finds that it often boils down to if he ultimately believes in the supernatural or not, which becomes a philosophical question and not something that can be dealt with by the reductionism-materialist science that everybody seems to think is the can opener for everything… which is so untrue and has led to many bizarre and tragic events in our history taken to their "logical" conclusion.
This is because if one finds that he has no choice but to accept the closest materialist explanation even if it's unlikely and exclude the supernatural one simply because he does not believe the supernatural is possible, and not really based on the merit of any argument at all. If one were to make any sort of fair judgment, one needs to consider natural and supernatural explanations both equally plausible in his belief set before moving on to approach the issue. Before one has done so, no one can be said to have made a fair judgment.
Of course, you could pre-empt the issue by first starting on the issue if the supernatural exists in our naturalistic world. This is hardly irrational, just honest.
Arguing for the supernatural is still in the realm of rational science though, and as I said, the game is still up in the air. There's not enough space here, but I just hope that what has been said by various people here on both sides spark some real, and fair interest for once.
Cheers!
do a strip on orientation!!!
"i think u are plain boring. so bored u hv to pick on religion. y dun u pick on ur family? or ur relatives? or ur own country? duh.... plain boring."
Oh yes I do pick on those stuffs, I kinda like question anything that does not go with my logic.
And why am I debating over religious matter here? Well, just in case you didnt realise, this thread has started its debates because of religion and not family, relatives, country blah blah blah ...
And I guess your actually bored enough to read this read and especially my comments.
That anonymous guy
"Well, my point is... I think we should all seek the truth. Even as a Christian I still do that, and shouldn't be afraid to ask difficult and challenging questions about what we really believe in. For above all, absolute truth must be sought."
I have to give credit to rex for making such a comment even though he/she is a christian himself/herself.
Yes, it's good to think out of the bible, do not be afraid to question higher authority. I mean, why would God punish you if you question him? Does that make him/her any good?
It's great to see a christian who questions his/her belief. If only every christians are like that...
That anonymous guy
Religion is really dangerous fairytales...
There is no way to prove god.. but no way to disprove it either..
IMAGINE
Imagine that someone said there is a orbiting teapot around the sun.
The teapot is too small for any of our telescopes to pick up.
There comes insitutions, elders and pastors who all tell you that this teapot exist.
The teapot legend went from generation to generation.
One day , when we finally have the telescope to find the teapot , a scientist realises the teapot doesn't exist.
He tells the world his discovery, surely he would be deemed as a heretic for not believing in the teapot.
We cannot prove alot of things, but it doesn't mean that they exist.
I can't prove that goblins, unicorns, pixies and talking tacos don't exist... yet i cannot prove them either.
Same with religion.
Evolution explains everything flawlessly, from start to end.
God theory just raises a even more improbable god to explain an improbability.
Some of u will claim to have found new evidence about "The Ark" or "The young earth", but if u read these evidences carefully, u will realise these are just very fraudulant claims made by so called christian scientist.
To expend on my previous day's sentiments, I feel this strip is elevated from being simply an attack on the meritocracy being worshipped as a value by Singaporeans.
This is because via the obvious parallel of 'Supply Side Jesus' (yes satire includes sometimes copying stuff or think of it as paying homage L-inc) which in turn lampoons the dichotomy between on the one hand, what Jesus said and what he was meant to represent. And on the other, the positions currently taken by the Christian Religious Right as well as the sentiments held by the nominally Christian USA.
For a more extensive treatment, check out Harper's, "The Christian Paradox".
Hey peoples,
I believe in God and appreciate the sacrifice of Jesus, but I have to say that I'm not exactly a very devout christian. This strip has not offended me, for some reason.
This strip isn't about Christianity or anything. Its more of meritocracy and its wrongs. We do see this kind of thing everyday, don't we?
Like the terrorists we often hear of. Do we condemn Islam or do we condemn their ideals? Think about it.
Oh, yeah. Good post, mother Hee, and Hou.
hmm don't really understand
from wat has been written over the tagboard, i'm afraid i have to comment dat, sadly, instead of the progressive stance students sketchpad is taking which is small positive criticism of singaporean society, we are devolving back to the times of the salem witch hunts. pity pity.
Religion is a very very sensitive issue but if you know what u are doing i am sure it is all right. you have my support=)
Actually the way it turns out, unlike what some muddle-headed Christians may say, asking questions is actually a Christian virtue.
Come to think of it, it should be the virtue of any system that claims that it has the answer to it all; that it's adherences should not be afraid to test to see if it holds water. If I am a person who has never had any doubts about what I believed in and questioned anything that I was told… could I say to have really believed in anything
"Evolution explains everything flawlessly, from start to end."
Evolution is a compelling notion, but even if it's valid (which is still a bone of contention in scientific circles), it only explains life from a materialist-reductionism perspective. Which has pretty serious implications in many ways if you want to believe you are anything more a collection of swirling atoms.
Now don't misunderstand me for saying that we should reject evolution for favour of God-theory, I am not even within a hundred miles of God-theory. But all I am asking is for you to consider that not if evolution is valid as a theory… but if it's adequate as a worldview.
Let's consider for a moment, if evolution ever was, and was ever that all will be. That everything in the universe was nothing more then an evolved, and evolving collection of naturalistic laws generated after the big bang. Now immediately you have certain issues to consider.
If that is indeed the case, then one needs to consider if he really believes in the process of evolution being it all. For example, one would now look at love and explain it as a series of biochemical changes in the brain marked by the increased presence of hormones like seratonin and oxytonin (sp?). This is all that love is, nothing more then a creation of evolved process in the brain that pushes our species onwards to procreate and multiply.
Now this is all good (whatever that means in an evolutionistic worldview) and true… this would be all love that would be if evolution indeed explains everything flawlessly, from start to end so they say. But I wonder how many people who tout evolution to be the answer and reason for life really believe it that.
Does the biochemist leaves work, arrives home to his wife and see her as nothing more then a conspecific that invokes the appropriate biochemical responses in his brain that gives his this bonding emotion called "love"? Does the scientist kiss her boyfriend and thinks that this is nothing more then just external stimuli to kick off mood-altering bodily processes?
More likely then not they are more then likely to see something more, something transcendent in these processes that cannot be explained simply by sheer physical changes in the body that have no more meaning then being evolved processes. Indeed, the wife of the biochemist, and the boyfriend of the scientist are more then them then just reactions in their body.
If they just were, and indeed evolution were all there is to explain everything… then the biochemist would have every compelling reason to leave his wife when these feelings and processes fade. The scientist would have every right (as would we) to follow our evolved animal nature and have romantic relations with as many things as we liked as long as they are the result of naturalistic evolved processes.
Of course this is a compelling rationale, and some people have followed it. But somehow if that was the way it was why do people treat romantic love as if it was something more then just evolution trying to get us to reproduce? Why do wives feel cheated when their husband strays? And why do even promiscuous people have notions of what is sexually "cheap" as much as they like indulging this natural desire? If evolution was adequate to explain love, this would not be so. Somehow we know it's not, even in our age of sexual "liberation" (which is actually more of a form of gluttony if you ask me).
This is and often I ask, because I for one have come for a place where I used to think that evolution was adequate. Do so many of us really believe this? That evolution is adequate to flawlessly explain life as we know it? Are our hearts really congruent with what we speak with our minds? Do we speak as if evolution was all-encompassing and then live lives in a curious way as if we think that evolution cannot be the answer to it all?
Now let's say that indeed one has the fortitude to stand up to all this and put one's foot down that evolution was all that was and all that will be. All this human behaviour that seem to contradict straightforward evolutionary logic is nothing more then "ignorant sentimentality" that has been ingrained by generations of silly religious notions and people being blinded by the chemicals in their brains until seeing things that don't really exist… like true love.
Granted until now I have yet to make a logical appeal, and my little thought on stuff that seem larger then mere evolutionary processes such as romantic love as appealed to sentimentality. Let's drop all sentimentality to silly religious notions and illusionary things that cannot be quantified, let's think in terms of evolution explaining everything, so to speak.
This has been done many times in the course of human history, there have been men who have come along and picked up evolution as all that ever was and all that ever will be, and tried to build societies with notions on that. Let's see what happened.
Since evolution explained everything flawlessly, from start to finish. It followed suit that man himself was nothing more then an evolved resultant of ongoing processes that have been raging on for millennia.
The whole point- actually "point" is a misnomer for there is hardly any "point" in a universe in which everything was nothing more then the resultant of the arrangements of material by a natural process. More accurately the whole of evolution is to have the strongest, most staying force arise. Indeed, evolution is a meritocracy le supreme where only the strongest and most successful survive.
Man is nothing more then the result of that process, so why should we do any different? Why should we consider ourselves with silly little things like caring for those who are disabled? Indeed they will not add to the strength of our gene pool and why should we spend our resources for the greatest, strongest possible good for our species?
We can try to control evolution no doubt, in eugenics and genetic engineering. Now the whole "point" (again if that exists in a solely materialistic universe) of this is "control" over the process that led us here. Now we will be the masters of our own fate.
In doing so we have left a legacy of races persecuting other races and using them as slave as it was natural for a stronger race to subjugate a weaker. If the African natives could not defend themselves, it is not wrong for them to be taken as slaves by foreigners.
Many European nations carried out mass sterilizations of people below a certain IQ to better the gene pool. Nazi Germany went further and gassed them to get rid of the "deadweight" on their race. After all the resources wasted keeping these people alive all these years could go advance the evolution of the superman. "Nature is cruel" said Hitler, "hence I can be cruel as well".
Indeed why not? If evolution was all there ever was, this is perfectly logical. What is good and bad? These are nothing but evolved resultants to control us. Our "point" is to realize and be enlightened by this "truth", so to speak, and to somehow turn evolution to be something that can be controlled by us.
I wonder indeed, let's say it has happened. Let's say that some day we have indeed mastered our own genetic evolved nature, be it a measure of genetic engineering or eugenics, and gained control over our own human nature.
What then drives us to do anything at that point? What value do we have then? Indeed we have made objective value into something of a commodity that we can shape to our own fancies. But why should we be motivated by this objective value that we can shape? What drives us to obey ourselves? Our own made values? Why should we after all they were something we created. I suspect the superhuman, the logical eventuality of evolution if it was all that ever was… will be quite a confused person. In the end, the superhuman would have to reject all value and live to the weight of desire and instinct, which is really a return to nature.
In fact, every step that science seems to have taken against nature was actually a clever retreat back to lure us into a trap. Her arms we have seen raised in surrender were actually raised to enfold us forever. We have evolved intelligence to understand this "flawless" process of evolution only to have it eventually lead us back to a point where we live by anything but intelligence.
If evolution was all there ever was, and ever will be then nature should not be worried about this revolt of humanity and all it's unnatural appeals to the physically and temporally transcendent values of beauty, truth and love will eventually burn themselves out when we reach the apex of evolution. Reason and science itself will be firmly controlled by nature as we now use these processes not to control nature, but in accordance to our naturalistic impulses.
Indeed, if this is a purely evolved materialistic universe, then all these questions and answers won't really matter at all. There is no value in anything anymore then the collection of swirling atoms that made them up.
Of course, if you have followed me to this point, you would have realized that the main question I ask you is not if evolution flawlessly explains everything from start to an end.
It does not change the real question. The real question is: do you believe that this entire universe has no more value then just being a materialistic collection of matter that arises from natural laws? If you said so then you will be quite guilty of self-contradiction when you appeal to any value as the right and good thing to do, for these things hint at the materially transcendent.
If you reject all value and live in accordance to the weight of your instincts then I can say you are a true evolutionist… and do not contradict yourself. I shall consider that in another post.
But indeed, if you find in yourself the need to appeal to value, to have anything of value (we're not even into God-theory yet), then obviously evolution as the alpha and omega is clearly inadequate as a worldview.
Evolution may work flawlessly in the material sense, but if one wants to appeal to object value on it he walks on shaky ground. Indeed, one looks at a book and sees it as material with a meaning, a context and information on it.
One does not consider the book by its physical nature or the processes it arises from and see it as the meaning to the book, as much as it's physical nature gives us a platform to observe the manuscript. In the same way if one finds a need for objective value in life and the universe (which most of us hold unconsciously), he can't consider the universe merely by its physical makeup and the processes that formed it.
In the same way, finding out the material of the book and discerning it's binding and processes it arises from does not help us read it at all. In the same way one would make the mistake of trying to see the universe for all it's physical processes and nature and try to see it as all that it is. There is no point in reading the book if you just insist on considering the physical aspect of the book, for the meaning of books is not in their physical nature.
Seeing the physical side of things is not the same as seeing and reading what this really means… which is really the point of science in the first place. As such, I found that evolution is inadequate as an all-encompassing worldview. Be you an atheist or an theist, should you believe in and truth and value you would know that.
So yes, evolution may (if it's ever perfected) explain everything flawlessly… but only in the physical sense… what we derive from evolution is still an open ball game for theistic and atheistic interpretations. And you would realize that their arguments are more philosophical, for science has stopped a long way back.
Believe me, I have thought a long time and learnt a lot about evolution... even when God wasn't real to me... and believe me I think it's not adequate to explain everything. It's akin to riding a skateboard flawlessly and saying it's the answer to life.
Everybody has an inalienable and unstoppable right to believe in what they want. Therefore, for those readers who can't stomach a religious-themed joke or two, quit reading.
The most ridiculous and hypocrital thing that states and societies all over the world has ever been forced to do was to put race and religion on a higher pedastal than every other worldly matter.
I can be a fervent supporter of an environmentalism, but if I get offended by a webcomic featuring tree-huggers in a negative way, I'm a over-enthusiastic weirdo.
However, if we were to amend that to be any religion instead of environmentalism, I would be feeling justified in raising hell over that particular webcomic, which is what just some readers have done.
End-product? Instead of thoughtfully mulling over the pros and cons of meritocracy, and how should the cons of meritocracy be tackled, I just feel relieved that I'm still living in a secular and meritocratic state.
"Everybody has an inalienable and unstoppable right to believe in what they want. Therefore, for those readers who can't stomach a religious-themed joke or two, quit reading."
This is very true, and I certainly agree with you. It does raise an interesting question though... from where exactly do we derive our "inalienable and unstoppable right" to believe in whatever we want? This isn't a rethorical question, but a pertinent one... because if we have no reason to believe it's inalienable and unstoppable... then we have no right to it. Like many oppressive regimes have happily said to be the case.
"The most ridiculous and hypocrital thing that states and societies all over the world has ever been forced to do was to put race and religion on a higher pedastal than every other worldly matter."
It is certainly ridiculus and hypocrital if they were not more important then every other worldly matter... the question indeed is, are they? This comes down to a discussion of values... for example most of us agree that freedom is better then repression... but where exactly does that notion come from.
This is no different from nations that tout being secular, religious, scientific, or even meritocratic as being ultimate issues to be pursued.
The real question I believe is not if it is ridiculous and hypocrital that certain issues are touted higher, but if they really are ultimate issues. If they are indeed more important... then it would not be hyprocritical or ridiculous to tout and deal with them constantly. The deriving of such value, of course, is beyond the scope of this post.
cheers!
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
gosh, this comment board has turned into a religious debate forum.
honestly, i feel nothing really wrong with this satire. but when religion issue is at hand, people think with their hearts and not their heads, so there would be some uproar especially among the very devout.
i think we should all be openminded on this. altho personally i feel its ok, but out of concern for en and hou, I suggest don't draw too much using religion in future entries for it might irk others, can use it occasionally yes, but not an entire strip. there are many ways of drawing and expressing your creativity :)
carry on! don't be discouraged.
-just me-
All those shallow assholes down there should just shut the hell up, the underlining theme of this post wasn't aim to mock christian. So I don't understand why some of you are dragging religion into this.
IF you want to get technical...
1) The actual "god"(no such thing anw) is Jesus Christ vs Meritocratic Jesus so it is different person. For your information there ARE people with the name of Jesus.
2) If you want to be more technical, your saviour is NOT suppose to be call Jesus, the correct name is Joshua. So why are you ranting so much.
3) If you guys argue that using Jesus is clearly directing to your god. Then you are as wrong as those people who thinks that Joshua is born on 25 Dec, 3 kings went to visit him when he is born. (it mage and 3 present doesn't means 3 person). As many things that are widely believe are wrong(refer to point 2).
I will also take this time to point out that you guys should keep your view to yourself since most of the time you guys are wrong.
When I ask question like
How in the world can god create this universe[instead of e=mc^2]? The answer you guys gave are god is the most powerful and can do EVERYTHING.
Then how do you know that he is so powerful? The answer I get is, he has the power to created the universe :S. Omg you guys love to beg the question
Qn:Why do you think that god are sinless
Ans: From so many years of study we still have not find fault in him.
Yeah thats what you guys believed but it doesn't make it true. Masscare of Amalekites(1 Sam 15) remains me of the Jews. You can believe all you want but it doesn't make it true. I can believe that Earth is in the middle of solar system but i will be wrong.
Also if you think that Yahweh is so great you shouldn't get what the hell the bible is talking.
How often will you come across a person who say he have faith in words of god and when you point out a contradiction will say this should be interpretered this way and so other craps in the bible should not be taken literally and some are suppose to be taken literally. Very often they told me I should use COMMON sense but that is dumb in the first place since their god is so ominpotent I don't think their thinking is very COMMON. Very often they will be in some "social gathering" call bible studying. Which basically mean looking for loop holes to justify their acts as rightous and so on.
This really pissed me off you see, because they are taking what they want and interpreting the content in a way that it will please them. It has become a religion that they have created[thats why there are so many denomination] they just accept what they want and in the process even change the correct interpretation that was from the bible. Then they often use THEIR interpretation of bible to justify their action. Oh well do you need any reminder that the interpretation is by them so they are justifying their action with their own interpretation of what is correct and what is wrong. Not so much of what THEIR god(if exist in the first place) see as right or wrong but is more of THEY think that is correct. So they are damn hypocrites.
Anyway who cares about what they discovered after reading those books. Big shit if they decided to interpretation something in a particular way out from the book and decided to execute their action which will be in tune with their interpretation of the bible. Well done smartass you are a shallow idiots, get your own opinion. If you can't even go read a frictional x-rated book without changing your mind about on how to handle situtation, then tell you what stay at home to prevent access to any book. You'll be doing all of us a favor. Beside nobody knows if your interpretation is correct or wrong you are not some master dectative or what, get a job, nobody cares.
Are you implying rex, that believing in evolution means the total disregard for morals? That we can only believe in morals if there is a spiritual master above us, and we wld not believe in them if we believe in reason?
Quite the opposite, according to stoics , the theist can be considered the amoral ones.
Take 2 scenarios
1.Big bully likes to whack people when they do wrong. A person under the power of the big bully wld always do right out of fear.
2.A person that does right all the time because he feels its a beautiful thing to do.
Can we not consider no.2 the real moral person?
According to some religions, they think god punishes them or will choose to put misfortunes in front of them for doing some things wrong.. if that is the case, are they not doing the right thing only because he is doing it out of fear?
A god doesn't add morality into the equation, but in fact removes it!
A god that kills will always be considered a good god( be it egyptians, sodomites or anything). Thus the laws of morality do not apply to god.
Since it does not apply to god, why should it apply to the believers? If god was to go around telling believers to pracitse cannibalism , murder andhuman sacrifice, should we say they are doing no crime because god tells them to do so?
If god is above moral law.. doesn't that make him amoral?
When it comes to morality, the Kantian atheist beat the believers of religion anyday.
1-0
ONE - NIL.
I am nt sure who said tat evolution explains everything flawlessly. For sure it explains certain things better than the Book like creation of men and animals.
However this "evolution" thing has been construed to be devoid of "humanity" where it is cold, scientific stuff while the Book would be quite the contrary, isn't it? The Book's explaination wld then be airy fairy..mythology(fairy tale) if u like.
Nobody wld look upon yr loved ones in cold, scientific terms. There is that "human" element which presides precisely because we r humans.
Evolution has nothing to offer which explain tat. It only explains how the living creatures came about and in better ways than the BOOK does (more precisely GENESIS and its 7 days creation).
So let us examine the issues in parts and not say tat evolution explains everything flawlessly when compared to the whole BOOK. It doesnt.
That part abt promiscuity hit me hard in the solar plexus.
Look, if we have revolutionised our society with an unmitigated flow of sex in the media (in all its forms such as the INTERNET, magazines, etc,)do not expect society to behave any different.
After a time, we will know it is cheap and junk sex, as portrayed in the various media.
Evolution has never advocated survival of the fittest. It was HErbert Spencer's social darwanism which did. In fact, Darwin has always reminded one and all that "animalistic/beastly modes of living" in the animal kingdom cannot be used as justification for doing the same in human living. That wld take away the "human-ness" of homo-sapiens, a thinking, reasoning, feeling, intelligent and higher form of being who shld know and do better.
Again like all ideologies, Marxism and Darwinism, these were mis-represented and mis-used by other proponents like Hitler, Francis Galton and Stalin, who justified what they did.
Frankly perhaps this comic strip was drawn to focus on the NKF saga more than on religion.
Perhaps we have all gone off the track a bit here.
En & HOU - what exactly were yer original intentions?
frankly as we can see here, many people have MAJOR misconceptions abt christianity religion and everything.. bleah... misconceptions lead to more misconceptions and lead to more misunderstandings... bleah im sick of it... maybe we shouldnt delve into such sensitive issues in the future ya?
It is easy to claim your opponents have misconceptions when they do not agree with you.
The problem is not that WE have misconception here. The problem is the bible is with SOOOO much conradiction, no one will ever understand. I dun see ANYONE FIT to say we misunderstood the bible unless they are god themselves.
Your understanding is just no doubt shallow. It is just your own interpretation, interpretation of someone with infinite sin.
Like you said religion is sensitive, so it is fair to say religion can trigger violence easily. So we should get rid of it. It will really make the world a more peaceful place.
AmonDEDude : Right, gone way off the track of what is originally intended.
Cheers,
Hou.
"Are you implying rex, that believing in evolution means the total disregard for morals? That we can only believe in morals if there is a spiritual master above us, and we wld not believe in them if we believe in reason?"
Ah, we have made some progress here.
Certainly not! What I am pointing out, and you correctly noted, was that evolution in itself is inadequate for the sheer realization of a moral law.
To his credit, Darwin himself never advocated evolution to be a replacement for any sort of humanity thing. In fact, he was more interested in how things came to be, what that meant was another matter for the thinkers to debate.
I was arguing against a materialist ethic, this is, the sum of life is found in the way it came about, as in a painting is nothing more then a collection of paint and canvas and should not be considered anything more then that. Following the materialist ethic has let to many tragic things.
Now the next step follows that now what you and i agree is that humanity is far more then the mere sum of its atoms.
Now that it is that value, if is has its roots in theistic or atheistic groundings, is what is open in the air for talking. And of course what it ultimately means for us.
Of course, as for the argument that a thiest is amoral, there are several things that can be said.
First and formost, indeed it would be amoral if the adherence of a particular god did good out of fear, and in fact would remove free will out of the situtation. Now these gods do exist in particular religions, but if they do really exist is another matter.
Obviously they are incongruent with free will or any sort of morality indeed.
On the other hand, it would be fallicious to assume that this concept of god applies to every possible concept of God.
In fact, far from being a proof for the amorality of God (if there is one), it's more of an argument to show what God (if He exists) is not. In fact the point you raised has been raised by Christian thelogians in trying to describe God.
Firstly while there are people who follow God out of sheer fear, it can be said that any level-headed Christian can tell you that this is hardly the case.
Indeed, the religious person (at least the Christian) has exactly the same motivation as Kantian atheist in terms of motivation to do good. That is good is a beautiful thing and worth doing for Good's sake.
As for killing and supposed "holy" wars.
Now trying apply rules of morality simply to God would run into several difficulties, especially if one sees that He condoning the killing of people as an immoral act.
Why this is so difficult is because our own preception of morality is based on our own extremely limited experiences, and at times it's limited to our own materialist bias (that is we think death and pain are the worst things in any case)
If one were to say that killing and causing pain were to be immoral (all of the time), and the moral opinion would be the absolute avodiance of death, pain and violence. One would be a pacifist in any sense of the world
But is being a pacifist really a moral choice? And does it really make moral sense in our kind of world. Very often you will find the need to turn to some kind of force to prevent evil from spiraling out of control. Inaction in many cases would be a greater evil then action that causes pain and death.
In God's credit
(if he exists), He has been giving humanity a ton of leeway in messing up the world.
I don't think the concept of a theistic God is incongruent with morality for the simple notion that this notion is well... too simple.
One can derive a moralistic compass from atheistic worldviews, but the theistic worldviews are any behind as well.
Why I think it's plausable, and possible for God to be a moral God, is the fact that He Himself would have been the author of morality, and the best judge of how to wield that.
To be moral involves choice, but all choices lead to consquences (there would be no morality if there is no consquence).
Doing some people in may seem at first as impossible for a moral God... but I wonder if we are just seeing a small bit of the picture. What if doing these people in is actually the moral thing to do in actually the BEST thing to do, morally? We cannot know because we don't have a perfect grasp of morals. But a being who wrote the law Himself would understand, and act accordingly.
Now I am not arguing for the justification of holy wars and the like, but what I am arguing for is that what is seemingly immoral, or ammoral at first may not be so. In fact, if a being who is the embodiment of morality itself exists, I would expect Him to do rather difficult-to-understand things at times.
This is not because He is immoral, or ammoral so to speak, but because our own grasp of morality is far too limited to fully understand it.
In many ways, a homeless person in winter with no concept of the true danger of explosives has set up a bonfire at an ammunition dump. The manager of the dump immediately snuffs out the fire and forcefully removes the homeless person from the area to a safer one.
To the homeless person this seems evil and immoral, after all why would some person put out his only source of warmth and force him to go away?
The manager then explains the danger of explosives the the homeless person, but having come from the country, this is very hard to understand. The manager offers the homeless person a job and stay at the plant, but provided he has to follow all the rules to the letter, and if he did so he would learn about the why and how of things.
All this of course, seems very strange and mysterous to the homeless person, who still sees the snuffing out of his bonfire and the forceful evacuation as something quite hard to get over... after all these are things he has known his whole life.
Of course this is a very crude picture I am drawing here, and there is a serious lack of space for more dept.
But if you ask me if I think God is above morals or immoral? I think the question is a little moot, especially when my concept of Him is that he is the embodiment of morality, morality in many forms beyond which I have yet to understand itself.
The athiest can believe and work towards discovering his own concept of absolute morality, and the inconsistences he sees in his own worldview he looks deeper into, it would be unreasonable to say that the serious christian does not, or worse, holds simple, fearful notions on it.
What I personally believe is that God (if He exists), works for our ultimate good, but without compromising our free will. This means that the things He does are going to end up very strange at times, not because He's above morality of ammoral... but becaause we are immoral and insist of complicating things with wrong choices.
If an all-powerful and all-good being exists, I'm sure the answer would not be immediately obvious. What I am saying here is not that you immediately thrown your faith in a theistic explination of morality, but that you drop the simple notions of "fear" and straightforward "contradiction"... and really think about how it might be possible.
This of course, involves reexamining every single conception, good or bad about our worldviews themselves.
I try to do this constantly, even if it seems at first to shake my faith... but Christians have long being accused of trying to explian away the world's problems with trite one-liners and superfical slogans, and it's something I don't want to be guilty about... I don't see why the athiest shouldn't do the same, if they haven't, or have been guilty of the same things.
i like this post. im a christian. i understand the underlying meaning of it, and its nth against christianity.
regarding this note:
"Comrade Anonymous said...
Can you christians PLEASE BE MORE OPEN MINDED and STOP DWELLING IN YOUR BIBLES. If God is so great, there will be no suffering, seriously all-good and all-powerful do not co-exist."
i wld say that you are bringing religion into the topic, when in the first place, it wasnt mean to be offending. if there is no suffering, you don't need a God. and you will never learn to become a strong person. and you will never appreciate life without sufferings coz u have taken it for granted =)
im not trying to make u agree with me, but i hope u dun try to impose your views on others and create displeasure.
its not about being open minded or not, its just that some of us are just uncomfortable with the use of Jesus, because He is afterall our God. even though the entry wasnt meant to mock christianity at all. its onli out of respect that we feel this way.
seriously, that was a very mean comment.
For one thing is that as a Chritian i was not insulted by the webstrip.
but it was the people who commmented.
for the people who believe in other gods or are simply aethist you could have thought of our side of the story. and there is nothing wrong trying to protect what is important to us and that being protective does not mean some of us are ugly christians.
the main purpose for me commenting is that, if you dont believe in something and you dont know about that something or you choose not to believe. you should least respect the other people. instead of saying that we are narrow minded and we dwell on our bibles.
I'm sure you guys didn't mean to make a personal attack on Christianity or whatever, but personally i think that it's not too good to add in religious figure into your comic strip. it's quite a sensitive issue to others /:
Great job guys!
Although I must say that isn't it ironic that you have to be somewhat intellegent to understand the joke of the strip?
To nik and his clock analolgy:
Nik, according to quantum uncertainty, a state of the object is random until someone views the object (see Schrodinger's cat). But however, during the time when the state of the object is not known, there are finite/infinite amount of possibilities happening. Universes converge and diverge into multiple dimensions of infinite amounts as we speak. Our whole lives are not laid out before us, but whereas it is what we choose to PERCEIVE which in turn is what we GET. Therefore, when we PERCEIVE, realities falls back into one universe, and our path goes on into that universe.
E.G. At the start of the universe (Big bang) 50-50 chance of expansion. If yes, universe formed. If no, no universe formed. BUT, in that no-universe situation, a completely different set of events will happen. Therefore, it is by pure chance and luck that u get to be on this plane of existence.
P.S. I am a devout Buddhist, but i try not to explain science through religion and vice versa(Though Buddhism can be said to be a form of science), as I want to experience the beauty of both theology and science.
Great job on the illustration! I enjoyed the added humour to social commentary. Though i would like to voice out something. Although I know it was never your intention to attack on any particular religion, but you have obviously used prominent persona and events as choice of materials. If you are Christians, the danger of stumbling others is at hand. If you are not, then perhaps exercising some forms of sensitivity and caution is wiser. The intense furor between the Danish government and muslim world says it all.
=)
heh. Judging by the 117 (118 now) "sometimes-very-nasty" and "not-quite-logical" comments that this particular strip has attracted, I'd say the reason for not including a religious figure in comic strips is self-evident.
hm. Just for clarity's sake. That was directed both towards the mindless evolution/aethist junkies as well as the far-right "i-will-burn-you for-heresy" fundamentalists.
you think christians are shallow. you have no right, for one. and if someone annouced by your nickname and said you a shitass (which you pretty much are)and said you stole and murdered, how the heck would you respond.
joshua, jesus, the same. as long as connection is made. whats the difference.
the comic wouldnt be the one to spark religious dispute. you would bthe one
Manual trackback : http://www.sgentrepreneurs.com/2006/03/meritocracy-as-double-edged-sword-to.html
this comment comes rather late after the whole saga of using jesus as a symbol in the comic
Frankly, i am christian, i was rather uncomfortable with the use of religion in a comic strip, its treading on sensitive ground everywhere. Not a particularly funny or wise topic to make a cartoon about.
BUT i dont think the cartoon should be taken down, because though there are things that will poke at your beliefs, we shouldn't be imposing our beliefs onto everyone. Good attempt to comment on the charity saga.
Yet its good that you guys made it clear that you werent trying to offend any religion. And it looks like there's a whole arguement about creation vs evolution. But one question i have to ask.
Do you believe the big bang could have created a universe as magnificent as this. That every part of the earth is connected in some amazing cycle of systems. That every moment you're alive billions of cells are working and do you believe there all this is a result of
chance? coincidence? That millions of systems are working in you?
There's so many things you cant explain, and im not asking you to immediately believe in christianity, but realise that the whole way the earth works is not coincidence, its definitely a planner at work. (: Just think about how instrinsic life is in the first place, how huge a concept being ALIVE is.
Just remember that, and you will know there's a god out there at work.
Pontius' name spelt wrongly. his last name is spelt Pilate. :)
...they already said 'pilot' was deliberate!lame.
wah still blasphemous even tho u changed names n stuff cos you still got your inspiration from Christianity!
next time don't k :)
the rest of your comics are VERY funny!
i love the braless RGS girls ;p
Mmm, I understand that you said you were going to use this to compliment Christianity, but please understand that this is really sensitive. Even after I read your entry on how it compliments Christianity, I find it quite insulting. I understand that it's all for fun's sake, and yes, I understand that you are an athiest, but Jesus really means a lot to me. Insulting schools can be accepted, and in some areas it can be rather funny, and yes, I did read the parrellell, but please don't ever do it again.
I know this was pretty late.
Please do not mix politics with religion. Even though you claim that it is "another" Jesus, it is still pretty blasphemous. Suggest that you remove such seditious cartoons. Thanks.
Goodness! This has become more relevant than ever!
gucci outlet
coach outlet
north face outlet
adidas shoes
jordan shoes
hollister kids
cheap nfl jerseys
nike outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet
adidas uk
louis vuitton outlet
toms shoes
basketball shoes
true religion outlet
nike air max 90
oakley outlet
air jordans
coach outlet
michael kors handbags
replica watches
coach factory outlet
jordan 13
nike trainers
michael kors outlet clearance
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
insanity workout
coach outlet
adidas shoes
cheap jordans
michael kors outlet online
jeremy scott shoes
coach outlet online
burberry outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
nike air force
nike huarache shoes
michael kors outlet
2016.6.7haungqin
vans shoes
nike air max 90
coach outlet online
ray ban outlet
true religion jeans
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
marc jacobs
coach factory outlet
jordan retro
ray ban wayfarer
adidas yeezy 350
timberland outlet
nike uk
michael kors outlet
cartier watches
toms shoes
toms shoes
coach factory outlet
timberland outlet
pandora jewelry
fitflops
christian louboutin flats
tory burch outlet
nike free run 2
louis vuitton outlet stores
jordan shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
replica watches for sale
louis vuitton outlet
oakley sunglasses
toms outlet
louis vuitton outlet online
nike roshe flyknit
asics outlet
michael kors outlet
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton
adidas trainers
2016.7.8haungqin
vans shoes
nike air max 90
coach outlet online
ray ban outlet
true religion jeans
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
marc jacobs
coach factory outlet
jordan retro
ray ban wayfarer
adidas yeezy 350
timberland outlet
nike uk
michael kors outlet
cartier watches
toms shoes
toms shoes
coach factory outlet
timberland outlet
pandora jewelry
fitflops
christian louboutin flats
tory burch outlet
nike free run 2
louis vuitton outlet stores
jordan shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
replica watches for sale
louis vuitton outlet
oakley sunglasses
toms outlet
louis vuitton outlet online
nike roshe flyknit
asics outlet
michael kors outlet
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton
adidas trainers
2016.7.8haungqin
WWW0602
valentino outlet
longchamp outlet
oakley sunglasses
cazal sunglasses
mulberry bags
baltimore ravens jerseys
longchamp handbags
michael kors outlet
cheap nfl jerseys
air huarache
qzz0707
canada goose outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet online
ferragamo outlet
moncler outlet
prada sunglasses
trailblazers jerseys
ralph lauren polo shirts
76ers jerseys
ralph lauren uk
coach outlet online
pandora charms
louboutin shoes
superdry clothing
off white shoes
jordans
pandora
oakley sunglasses
tods shoes
ralph lauren uk
coach outlet online
pandora charms
louboutin shoes
superdry clothing
off white shoes
jordans
pandora
oakley sunglasses
tods shoes
zzzzz2018.9.8
yeezy boots 350
coach outlet
ralph lauren polo
nike shoes
canadian goose
ralph lauren polo
dsquared2
ralph lauren uk
air max 90
moncler outlet
golden goose outlet
jordan 11 retro
air max 90
air jordan
yeezy shoes
adidas outlet
goyard bag
golden goose sneakers
michael kors
nike roshe
golden goose outlet
jordan 11 retro
air max 90
air jordan
yeezy shoes
adidas outlet
goyard bag
golden goose sneakers
michael kors
nike roshe
yeezy shoes
jordan retro
nike x off white
vapormax
supreme clothing
curry 4
hermes online
lebron james shoes
adidas gazelle
christian louboutin
Post a Comment
<< Home