English, Jesus and Mo explained

Pretending really hard

Creative Commons 3.0 from jesusandmo.net

The sad thing is that the cartoon has a point. There are lots of believers who mix up belief and knowledge, faith and facts. But actually faith does NOT mean pretending to know something you are as clueless about as others.

Faith in God has rather few to do with hard facts. God can be there if creation or evolution is true, that won’t hinder too much. And God can even be there without any afterlife. That’s not what it’s all about.

One thing I find rather strange is that atheists, who mostly claim to be sooo very much more based on science than believers, is that they tend to use the same bible hermeneutics as right wing believers, i.e. raw biblicism. The bible writes about creation in 7 days, science tells us about evolution. Religion must be wrong and religious people dumb. Religion tells us about people living to be 600 years old? Same thing.

The approach to the text is the same with those atheists and the biblicists they laugh about. Thus they come to similar conclusions: Biblicists mix up belief and knowledge, atheists do the same. And this although literary science would tell those oh so scientific thinking atheists that what they do is not scientific at all…

But how does this come, that people mix up belief and knowledge. It’s because we’ve forgotten how to read texts. That is: Older texts with a religious relevance like the bible.

If we take Shakespeare, we know that MacBeth is not supposed to be a historical record of Scottish history. And the Star Treck movies are not prophecies about the future (or another historical record).
Do you know Galaxy Quest? It’s a movie with Tim Allen. In the movie, Allen is actor of a Space series, he and his crew are travelling through the universe, fighting evil Aliens and all that. But it’s a show. Only that there are also real Aliens. And they get into trouble with another alien race. And they see that Space series and consider it to be historical records instead of just a show, because they don’t know this whole concept of shows (actually when they later find out about it only being a show, they consider it all lies).This illustrates a bit what’s happening with the bible. The Aliens didn’t pretend really hard that there was this hero space captain which was starred by Allen, he was there. But he wasn’t what it appeared to them, he wasn’t a space hero, he was a mediocre TV celebrity. It was just a misunderstanding.And what if the Aliens had known it was just a show. Would they have considered the whole space adventures of Allen nonexistent? No. Like we don’t consider the adventures of Kirk and Picard nonexistent, they are there, we can watch them. But they are not historic truth, they do not show knowledge about things that are going to happen or did happen once. But still they tell us about the authors and their days. Like when Kirk is always breaking rules to achieve his plans, we can know that in the culture that brought forth this TV show, breaking rules under certain conditions was acceptable or even heroic.These media are witnesses to what really (and historically) was. They tell us about the dreams and ideals of the people, or of their faith. That’s less in Star Trek, but more in the bible.Star Trek is true in so far, as Kirk (or Picard or Janeway) is really considered a hero and that our culture understands him so through the things he does in the show. Though none of these things actually happened. Still they are not just lies. They transport truth, but not historical truth.But that’s what biblicists and atheists seem to be after in anything. For them, Star Trek movies must appear to be either all lies or pretending really hard that people dream of travelling to the stars and live together peacefully (at least within mankind).So what I want to say? Think ! Think about what a certain text means, how it was meant to be read. You might come to the conclusion, that the creation texts in the bible are not about contradicting evolution, and that prophecy means not prediction of the future, but realising what’s really going on.Plus: Belief in God and Christ has foremost to do with the gospel and the salvation of humankind. Not about guessing or pretending about timely things. 😉

English, Jesus and Mo explained

Hijab and Atheism

From Jesus and Mo, License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

The complain in this comic is obviously that Muslim women have to cover up with hijabs or even burqas, so (Muslim) men’s lust was not provoked. Before all I want to point out that I am not at all interested in whether Muslims do claim so or whether it would be a right claim or not. This is not what this post is about.

This post is about the image Atheists, at least certain ones, have of Muslims and spread about them in comics as the above and whether or not one could call this hypocritical.

So this blog post is not against Muslims or Islam, it actually has nothing to do with it, it’s about atheist criticism of religion and in how far this criticism touches atheist demands as well.

One example of an atheist demand can be seen on my old blog. There’s a German article dealing with a picture I found on the internet. You can see the picture on the article page. On the picture there is a woman holding up a sign which reads:

Restraining Order: Your religious beliefs must stay 500 yards away from my constitutional rights at all times.

Other examples include but are not reduced to: No church bells as they disturb atheists, no public praying etc etc. Generally many atheist demands aim at pushing religion out of public space.

So while Muslim men are said being disturbed by viewing female hair, Atheists are disturbed by hearing churchbells, seeing and hearing religious people pray, seeing crosses and crucifixes in the public space etc etc etc.

As Muslim men are said to not tolerante their wives and daughters being „uncovered“ and visible in public, Atheists do not tolerate religion being „uncovered“ and visible in the public space.

Of course, the claim is that Muslims would suppress their women by making them cover up, and of course religious people are said to indoctrinate others with their religion by speaking about it openly and making it visible in the public. Suppressors are always the others!

No (new) Atheist I ever met even considered in how far their ideology of a „clean“ public would suppress others. The sign on the mentioned picture speaks of „constitutional rights“, isn’t the right to follow and practise a religion as much a constitutional right as having no religion is?

Muslims and other religious people are pictured as oppressors and indoctrinators, while atheists are the bringers of freedom, one could start thinking. But really Atheists just have their own brand of „oppression“ they seem to be blind to. They are asking not to be provoked by noticeable religion as they claim Muslim men are asking not to be provoked by female hair.

And this is either, if they know it, hypocracy, or it is thoughtless, unconsidered, which would mean that those people who claim to be sticking to reason could maybe do some more reasoning…

English, Jesus and Mo explained

Ticket to Zürich

by jesusandmo.net licensed under CreativeCommoms 3.0

Euthanasia is bad, but Jesus dying on the cross is good. This is the starting point for this comic. Mo draws a line from assisted suicide to Jesus knowingly going into death through people „helping“ him to do so for his own purposes. So he can claim that Christianity would be based on assisted suicide.

The mistake Mo is making here is that Jesus is God and not just any human being. And many Christians do believe that God is the only one who has the right to take life, as He is the one who gives life in the first place. So if He commits suicide Himself, this’d be no problem, as He is Lord. This isn’t just a pious saying.

There’s another mistake, but it is not made by Mo but by Jesus himself: The Jesus of the bible led a just life and was finally brought to death by the powers of His time. His death was not someting He was seeking. He did not buy a one way ticket to Jerusalem. His death was a consequence of the way he lived, a consequence of challenging the authorities.

A Jesus of our time would not just buy a ticket to Zürich, where assisted suicide is legal. He’d be sent to Zürich by those who want to see Him dead. He wouldn’t want to die, like the Jesus of the bible didn’t want to die, which you can read in the synoptic gospels:

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Mt 26:39)

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (Mk 14:36)

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Lk 22:42)

A Jesus of our days wouldn’t commit suicide as the original Jesus didn’t. He was murdered, altthough seeing it coming. Today, maybe the authorities would maybe try to send Jesus to Zürich, but then again murder is illegal even in Zürich, and Jesus would have to consent, which He woudn’t do, as we have seen. On the other hand, today’s authorities would not take the effort of buying a ticket to any place, they’d try to get rid of him then and there, as the authorities did back then. Of course they wouldn’t succeed in getting rid of Him, like they didn’t back then. 😉