0459: "Holy Ghost"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:38 pm UTC
Location: Argentina

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Devilfish » Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:42 pm UTC

Hi, I just signed in only to praise Randall's awesomeness and evidenced in this strip.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Sprocket » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:06 pm UTC

Mancho wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat in as another Catholic that thinks this comic is hilarious.
religiously based humor is often funnier for those who actually believe in it whom have a sense of humor.

However, they can just go into that big machine they keep the ghosts in and get him out again. I mean sure it's dangerous but this is 1/3 of JESUS we're talking about!
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
vodka.cobra
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby vodka.cobra » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:09 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:
Mancho wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat in as another Catholic that thinks this comic is hilarious.
religiously based humor is often funnier for those who actually believe in it whom have a sense of humor.

However, they can just go into that big machine they keep the ghosts in and get him out again. I mean sure it's dangerous but this is 1/3 of JESUS we're talking about!

Believers find it funny because they're confident it will never happen, and unbelievers find it funny in case they're wrong and they need a contingency plan. Everybody wins.
If the above comment has anything to do with hacking or cryptography, note that I work for a PHP security company and might know what I'm talking about.

almightyze
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:06 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby almightyze » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

I always wondered what the Holy Ghost looked like. I always thought it must look like a paradox.
01010011 01110100 01101111 01110000 00100000
01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01101001
01101110 01100111 00100000 01100010 01101001
01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110

Allah o akbar! Azadi!

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:22 pm UTC

thebeaky wrote:So, My bad, technically it was the Romans, but the Jews (or at least the Jewish Authorities) were the ones wanting him dead, the Romans didnt care so much, Pilate even tried to let him off.

But you somehow doubt the historical figure Jesus lived? or that He is God in flesh?

Right. I'm not expert in religion, but I just notice that when people say "The Jews killed Jesus" it is because they are looking for a reason to hate the Jews. IT's kinda anti-semitic.
I don't believe in Jesus because it is impossible to walk on top of water, and so on. The idea of God seems unlikely. Even as a person I doubt that he exists, although I think that the moral philosophy of either the fictional or nonfictional Jesus is cool.


Mr Baggins:

Dogma intro.

<Screen of text>
...So please before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a
film, remember: even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus.
Thank you and enjoy the show.

<Next screen>

P.S. We sincerely apologize to all Platypus enthusiasts out there who are
offended by that thoughtless comment about Platypi. We at View Askew
respect the noble Platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these
stupid creatures in any way.

SWEET. Thanks. That's a pretty funny movie.
Yaaaha wrote:
sje46 wrote:
Ryaison wrote:
stormoftara wrote:It's like that episode of I think Family Guy where the Ghost Busters go and get that ghost who was making pottery with that women in that 80's movie. Wow my memory is shot tonight. But ummmmmm...yeah that's what it reminds me of.


I believe that you are thinking of the movie "Ghost". Though its possible you left the name out for comedic effect. That being said, Patrick Swayze <3 Demi Moore forever.

PATRICK SWAYZE IS MUCH MORE THAN 3.

I'm sorry. But you insulted him, and I won't have that.


Mmm, sorry, I just think that you got it all wrong:

"<3" it's not "less than three", it's a heart (well, turned 90 degrees clockwise), like when you put a smiley :)

So he was saying: "Patrick Swayze heart Demi Moore forever" = "Patrick Swayze loves Demi Moore forever".

Oh, that was a great movie! Makes me cry when I see that pottery scene, or when I hear the song... you know: "Ohhhhh, my love......"

By the way, great comic too! I was raised a catholic, I don't find it offensive, why should it be?


Haha, thanks. But I knew what you meant; I was just kidding around.
I actually am not a big fan of Patrick Swayze, but this may just be because I've only seen one movie with him in it. I also saw Ghost too, but that was a really long time ago.

Also,
what's the deal with capitalized He? I mean, come on. Is it a sin not to? I just get annoyed, I guess. That is why I always refer to God as he.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
radtea
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby radtea » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:31 pm UTC

The curious thing about people who argue about who is "responsible" for Jesus' death is that none of them believe in the omnipotence of god. If god is omnipotent then god, and god alone, is responsible for everything.

If god is omnipotent, then he had the power to produce the salvation of humanity without Jesus dieing. Anyone who says god "had to" allow Jesus to die on the cross is denying the omnipotence of god, because an omnipotent god never under any circumstances "has to" anything, ever--to an omnipotent god any cause can produce any effect, so an omnipotent god can produce any effect in any way imaginable, and it will be exactly the same effect with exactly the same cause, if an omnipotent god wills it to be so.

An omnipotent god is more powerful than the laws of logic, and so is capable of doing things and creating circumstances that are completely incomprehensible to human beings. God, as the saying goes, "passeth all understanding", so pointing out the contradictions that would arise from the things god might have done other than have Jesus die won't carry any water unless you believe that God is limited by logic.

A limited god is not an omnipotent god.

Likewise, none of the "acts of god"--the plagues, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, mudslides and hurricanes--that people explain as a product of god responding to human wickedness are in any way necessary to an omnipotent god, because to be omnipotent is precisely to be beyond necessity.

That we can't comprehend such a god, nor what a world that was being actively shaped by such a god would be like, is no argument against it.

So either god is not omnipotent, or god is sending plagues and killing Jesus for some purpose that is utterly beyond us. It is certainly NOT to cause us to mend our ways, at least not if god loves us in the ordinary sense of love, because we could choose to mend our ways by the will of an omnipotent god without it being due to the will of an omnipotent god. Again: the logical contradiction is not a problem to an omnipotent god, and how such a thing would work out in practise in certainly beyond me, but it is certainly not beyond an omnipotent god.

Milton tried to "make clear the ways of God to Man" or however the line goes, and failed rather badly in his hubris. The reason for that is simple: an omnipotent god is incomprehensible to us, unless of course god wills it, and then it would be so despite our inability to comprehend.
Coming on Midsummer's Day to a Web Browser Near You: http://www.songsofalbion.com

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:32 pm UTC

Well, Christian existentialists say that God gave us free will, and thus we are not controlled by him. That is why we have sin.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby JoshuaZ » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

Phrone wrote:t was my impression that Jesus was killed by a more extremist set of Jews, who wanted him killed for (as they saw it) falsely claiming to the Messiah and for violating the Sabbath by performing miracles on Sunday. (Which, IMHO, is paying way too much attention to one commandment and not enough to another.)

That being said, I think it's definitely trollish behavior to go around saying "The Jews killed Christ!" because that's been a justification for a lot of anti-semitism, both historically and currently. It also goes against how Jesus (or at least, his followers, most notably seen in the book of Matthew) saw himself, which was a continuation -- with slight modification -- of the Judaic tradition.


Er, the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. And there's no prohibition on performing miracles on the sabbath. That's for starters.

Edit: Serious formatting corrections.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:15 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:
Phrone wrote:t was my impression that Jesus was killed by a more extremist set of Jews, who wanted him killed for (as they saw it) falsely claiming to the Messiah and for violating the Sabbath by performing miracles on Sunday. (Which, IMHO, is paying way too much attention to one commandment and not enough to another.)

That being said, I think it's definitely trollish behavior to go around saying "The Jews killed Christ!" because that's been a justification for a lot of anti-semitism, both historically and currently. It also goes against how Jesus (or at least, his followers, most notably seen in the book of Matthew) saw himself, which was a continuation -- with slight modification -- of the Judaic tradition.


Er, the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. And there's no prohibition on performing miracles on the sabbath. That's for starters.

Edit: Serious formatting corrections.

My Christian friend tells me that Saturday is Sabbath for Christians too.
Also, according to the Infancy gospel of thomas,
Chapter 2

(1) When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing in a narrow part of a rushing stream. (2) He was gathering the flowing waters into ponds, and immediately they were made clean, and he ordered these things with a single word. (3) And after he made clay, he molded twelve sparrows from it. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things. But there were also many other children playing with him.

(4) Then, a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the Sabbath. Immediately, he departed and reported to Jesus' father, Joseph, "Look, your child is in the stream and he took clay and formed twelve birds and profaned the Sabbath?"

(5) And Joseph went to the area and when he saw him, he shouted, "Why are you doing these things that are not permitted on the Sabbath?"

(6) Jesus, however, clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows, "Depart, fly, and remember me now that you are alive." And the sparrows departed shrieking.

(7) When the Jews saw this, they were amazed. After they had gone away, they described to their leaders what they had seen Jesus do.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Random832 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:37 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:
Mancho wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat in as another Catholic that thinks this comic is hilarious.
religiously based humor is often funnier for those who actually believe in it whom have a sense of humor.

However, they can just go into that big machine they keep the ghosts in and get him out again. I mean sure it's dangerous but this is 1/3 of JESUS we're talking about!


No, Jesus is a different 1/3.

User avatar
MuToiD_MaN
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:51 pm UTC
Location: Irvine, CA

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby MuToiD_MaN » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:57 pm UTC

I like how the Pope has guards to do his bidding, being able to strip anyone of their livelihood if he sees fit.
ĉiam veti sur Duke

User avatar
iaiaz
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby iaiaz » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:
My Christian friend tells me that Saturday is Sabbath for Christians too.
Also, according to the Infancy gospel of thomas,
Chapter 2

(1) When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing in a narrow part of a rushing stream. (2) He was gathering the flowing waters into ponds, and immediately they were made clean, and he ordered these things with a single word. (3) And after he made clay, he molded twelve sparrows from it. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things. But there were also many other children playing with him.

(4) Then, a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the Sabbath. Immediately, he departed and reported to Jesus' father, Joseph, "Look, your child is in the stream and he took clay and formed twelve birds and profaned the Sabbath?"

(5) And Joseph went to the area and when he saw him, he shouted, "Why are you doing these things that are not permitted on the Sabbath?"

(6) Jesus, however, clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows, "Depart, fly, and remember me now that you are alive." And the sparrows departed shrieking.

(7) When the Jews saw this, they were amazed. After they had gone away, they described to their leaders what they had seen Jesus do.


Right. You're not quite hitting the right point here. There is no prohibition against creating miracles on the Sabbath, because that's not really something that comes up a lot. However, there is a prohibition against certain types of work on the Sabbath, such as forming things. From clay. Like Jesus did.
That's a no-no in the Jew law.
"Don't threaten me with love, baby. Let's just go walking in the rain."
-Billie Holiday

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby StClair » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:13 pm UTC

Chapter 2

(1) When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing in a narrow part of a rushing stream. (2) He was gathering the flowing waters into ponds, and immediately they were made clean, and he ordered these things with a single word. (3) And after he made clay, he molded twelve sparrows from it. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things. But there were also many other children playing with him.

(4) Then, a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the Sabbath. Immediately, he departed and reported to Jesus' father, Joseph, "Look, your child is in the stream and he took clay and formed twelve birds and profaned the Sabbath?"

(5) And Joseph went to the area and when he saw him, he shouted, "Why are you doing these things that are not permitted on the Sabbath?"

(6) Jesus, however, clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows, "Depart, fly, and remember me now that you are alive." And the sparrows departed shrieking.

(7) When the Jews saw this, they were amazed. After they had gone away, they described to their leaders what they had seen Jesus do.


(8) And Joseph said, "That was a good thing you did, Jesus. Real good."

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:20 pm UTC

StClair wrote:
(

(8) And Joseph said, "That was a good thing you did, Jesus. Real good."

And then Jesus whithered him.
Spoiler:
1) The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered. (2) When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."

(3) And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."
iaiaz wrote:
My Christian friend tells me that Saturday is Sabbath for Christians too.
Also, according to the Infancy gospel of thomas,
Chapter 2

(1) When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing in a narrow part of a rushing stream. (2) He was gathering the flowing waters into ponds, and immediately they were made clean, and he ordered these things with a single word. (3) And after he made clay, he molded twelve sparrows from it. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things. But there were also many other children playing with him.

(4) Then, a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the Sabbath. Immediately, he departed and reported to Jesus' father, Joseph, "Look, your child is in the stream and he took clay and formed twelve birds and profaned the Sabbath?"

(5) And Joseph went to the area and when he saw him, he shouted, "Why are you doing these things that are not permitted on the Sabbath?"

(6) Jesus, however, clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows, "Depart, fly, and remember me now that you are alive." And the sparrows departed shrieking.

(7) When the Jews saw this, they were amazed. After they had gone away, they described to their leaders what they had seen Jesus do.


Right. You're not quite hitting the right point here. There is no prohibition against creating miracles on the Sabbath, because that's not really something that comes up a lot. However, there is a prohibition against certain types of work on the Sabbath, such as forming things. From clay. Like Jesus did.
That's a no-no in the Jew law.
I think the point was to not criticize Jesus/God for performing miracles on the Sabbath. So if someone else made clay pigeons, bad. But Jesus, it is okay.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Zer088
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:13 pm UTC
Location: south florida

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Zer088 » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:25 pm UTC

great now every time i hear 'holy ghost" I'm gonna think he's like slimmer, always leaving holy water on the walls he passes through.

as for catching him, you couldn't, it's God, not a firefly
I think crossing the beams would only give him a migraine. (at worst)
YaKKa Foob MoG. GRuG PubbaWuP ZiNK wattooM GaZoRK. CHuMBLE spuzz.
Image
John Kaim: Love is the most powerful catalyst in existence.

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Eugo » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:44 pm UTC

SwissArmyAnts wrote:Man, if a kid taking some crackers home from mass is enough to raise the ire of the Catholic League, I can't imagine the ruckus that this is going to cause.

All I can say is that Randall is in for some hate mail...


I had a boss who had "I can say screw them if they can't take a joke in eight languages" prominently displayed in his office.

These guys are taking themselves too seriously. Which is never healthy.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby cwDeici » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

watch_wait_plot wrote:
I doubt there will be hate mail, because the concept itself is so deeply ridiculous, and you have to look to relative depth before you can interpret anything as being truly offensive.

You'd be surprised how shallow a basis is needed to cause offense. There are people out there who will react to some pretty inane stuff.
But I lol'd as well.
Seriously, if any of my fellow Catholics are offended by this comic...they have no sense of humor, or life, or soul.


I'm not a Catholic, but from a Christian and anti-relativist point of view I STILL find your comment more offensive than the one I registered on to complain about. Where do you go off accusing your siblings in Christ of having no humor or life, let alone what I can only assume to have been a comic exaggeration?

As for the main idea behind the comic itself, I find it too ridiculous to take offense. The more mundane issue of the Pope and the Church I find hurtful though. Why would the Pope in such a fantasy, rewrite the Bible? Rather than fall in the trap of claiming that he should act in character and declare his religion dead or something I just want to say that the perpetuation of the idea of the Church as a knowing, willing and admitting fabricator of lies is hurtful. I can't say it's wrong of you to do so. Perhaps not even morally. It is your freedom to write such a comic of course. But I feel it would be similar to making comics with jokes where incidentally... democrats, or perhaps libertarian intellectuals... happen to be evil (in order to facilitate the joke). Not a point to itself, but it is so crude and very untrue. I believe it is no simpleminded assumption that most clerics believe in their cause, no matter their sinful failings.
Of course, it is necessary for the joke that it be so sans a reworking, but still... it is sad.

The people here seem to assume Christians are generally barbarians by their expectations of flames. While I'm non-denominational and of a protestant bent I know it's quite a different thing to smuggle out wafers then it is to mock most aspects of Catholic Christianity. Firstly, once consecrated, the wafers represent the Body of Christ to all Christians (excluding unrecognized sects, and according to Catholics is the body of Christ - literally -. The Catholic League may have overreacted (I lean towards that idea), but rest assured that most religious communities in the world would show less restraint. Secondly it is a criminal act to rob the Church of any of its objects, there is no 'freedom of theft' as there is freedom of speech, no matter how small, the definition of theft lies in what is monetarily valuable or emotionally treasured by the victim.


XKCD is a great comic... but as quoted 'the good mocking of religion' within the first few posts... there is a strain of utter disdain for religion here and perhaps God in general.

Are you sure we are so contemptible? You probably don't think so, or do, but it had nothing to do with the joke itself? I don't know.
But it is funnier if we are, so I am not sure what to say. Only that I wouldn't do it myself.

I hate Islam with my whole heart (but not Muslims) and I believe people are in their full rights, and even doing the right thing to mock it. Yet it is hateful. A weapon of last resort.

For mere comedy... of course, it can be used.
Perhaps I'm taking things too seriously.

But there is something to it... this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica you know? The Holocaust and Dissected-chan is funny if you believe it didn't happen. It's just the underlying presumption that the Church would ever... REVISE text... text written under the influence of the Holy Ghost... to lie to all generations... People at school used to go 'biggest lie ever' in the background wid' me just to bully me by attempting to rile me up (the one time I offered to answer they just made a cacophony of noise) so I might be oversensitive about it. A LOT OF things can be fun in the right mood or light or situation.
I guess I'm something of a theologian wannabe. ^^
Mhmmm... just think through what you're writing in between the lines, hmm? We don't like to lie any more than mathematicians y'know.. Please.
Or don't. It's your decision and humor, your soul... God will decide in the end, for it all belongs to Him.

Well that's all I wanted to say.
Good day to you all.



I had a boss who had "I can say screw them if they can't take a joke in eight languages" prominently displayed in his office.

These guys are taking themselves too seriously. Which is never healthy.


This just popped to my mind, so if you find it unreasonable then bear with me for my unfairness please.

What if you worshiped your cat and (forgetting about the whole eating thing, that'd be bit too left-field... even though I'm in China HK...?) then something came and stole it to show someone else what you worship?
I believe you'd take offense. The rage is mostly the effect of there being nutcases among a billion worshipers (divided by the ones who heard of it and only counting Catholics).
Last edited by cwDeici on Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
krynd
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:09 am UTC
Location: Basement Bedroom

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby krynd » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:02 pm UTC

I guess I'll join in.

I found this comic funny, and can't see where people are offended at. My rationale:
  • God is omnipotent (in case you don't know: it means, "all-powerful"). He can just will Himself out.
  • The Ghostbusters can always just let Him out.
  • God is everywhere. Capturing Him, or a part of Him, is like capturing all the matter in the universe.
  • Heaven exists on a separate plane of existance from Earth. Even if it intersects with Earth, God could always just jump back into Heaven. Therefore, even if he can't will Himself out, he can always "jump" out.
  • The Pope wouldn't have to re-write scripture. There's very little mention of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, and the "capture" of it certainly wouldn't stop anyone from preaching it.

    Pat Robinson, et al will always have something to preach about; no matter how much of their Faith you remove (pun intended).
  • The Internet is not Serious Business. Just post your own counter-comic where God Raptures everyone except one "Randall Monroe - for the crime of blasphemy". Seriously, the Internet follows American-style "rights" (technically it John Locke originated the ideas, but people somehow don't credit him with the Social Contract's influence on the Framers/Founders). You are well within your "right" to make another comic, post it on here, and call us all insensitive clods for mocking your poorly-drawn stick figures (although you are also free to remind us the "message transcends the medium").

The comic seems to affirm the existance of God, and sets Catholicism as "more correct". If this is so, why aren't the Protestants offended? I find the comic more suitable for trolling their ire than the Catholics'. Especially since (yes, I'm trolling here, and probably feeding the trolls in the process) someone who is "down with God" (heard it somewhere, thought it'd be funnier and less offensive than "a True Believer") would understand my rationale (listed above).

Forgive me Father, for I have trolled...

Spoiler:
I iz teh_Catholic.

Spoiler:
Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency wrote:Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
Dangermouse wrote:I hope this doesn't mirror too much of what you've read--and btw, you should read less and do more. No one takes good pictures or runs a marathon sitting on their couch surfing the internet.


WCG xkcd team

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby cwDeici » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

I only find it offensive that the Pope and his organization would have an institution of crafting falsehoods. I find 'the capture of God' so alien I can not comprehend it, find it anything more than marginally absurd and therefore funny, and much less be offended by it.

By the number of people who think 'the ire of the religious' is gonna fall down on them, maybe some readers take their comics too seriously. Webcomics have blossomed and thus lost the concentration of marginal fame that once existed. XKCD is a major within the sub-sub-sub-culture of GEEK WEB-COMICS, but that 'aint much. No offense of course, I've loved most of the comics even if some are awkward and don't work and this one in particular is rather uninspired (I've thought of it myself as Norwegians and maybe Cantonese use 'Holy Spirit' in their language and 'Ghost' thus sounds off) and crude in the execution imo.

User avatar
vodka.cobra
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby vodka.cobra » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:42 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:I find 'the capture of God' so alien I can not comprehend it, find it anything more than marginally absurd and therefore funny, and much less be offended by it.

To beg the question: Why would it be offensive at ALL? It's a joke.
If the above comment has anything to do with hacking or cryptography, note that I work for a PHP security company and might know what I'm talking about.

Exenon
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:29 pm UTC
Location: Right behind you !!

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Exenon » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:53 pm UTC

Hy to all offended, poor Believers !

I'm a believer too, but not in God. I do believe in the all-powerful sense of humour !! That comic is a joke ! JOKE ! You know what it means ? It means, it does not represent any beliefs, any real convictions, any real events, nor any real situation ! You can make jokes about everything ! It's not because i am making a joke about Jews that i am against them ! A joke is supposed to be funny. It is more or less funny, i agree with it, but it's never an offence ! Could you imagine life without jokes ?? How incredibly boring and depressing !
This comic especially is completely absurd and surrealist ! It is so totally weird that i dont understand how you can get mad about it... :?:

cwDeici wrote:XKCD is a great comic... but as quoted 'the good mocking of religion' within the first few posts... there is a strain of utter disdain for religion here and perhaps God in general.


I mean, you can't blame anybody about not liking an idea. Yes its true they shouldn't exaggerate it, but as long as they are not openly offensive, you can't criticize them for saying "I dont like religion.". I may be a bit biased because i'm not exactly a fan of religion either, but i'm tolerant. At least i'm trying to be.


cwDeici wrote:I hate Islam with my whole heart (but not Muslims) and I believe people are in their full rights, and even doing the right thing to mock it. Yet it is hateful. A weapon of last resort.


Now THAT is a statement ! I admire you for openly defending such an idea ! No, really, I do ! And I'm totally with you !


cwDeici wrote:But there is something to it... this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica you know? The Holocaust and Dissected-chan is funny if you believe it didn't happen. It's just the underlying presumption that the Church would ever... REVISE text... text written under the influence of the Holy Ghost... to lie to all generations... People at school used to go 'biggest lie ever' in the background wid' me just to bully me by attempting to rile me up (the one time I offered to answer they just made a cacophony of noise) so I might be oversensitive about it. A LOT OF things can be fun in the right mood or light or situation.
I guess I'm something of a theologian wannabe. ^^
Mhmmm... just think through what you're writing in between the lines, hmm? We don't like to lie any more than mathematicians y'know.. Please.
Or don't. It's your decision and humor, your soul... God will decide in the end, for it all belongs to Him.


No, its true, you don't like lying, i totally understand that. But teaching false things without knowing isnt the same thing as lying ! You can admit an error, that has been taught for generations, even if it means a lot of trouble and fuss and mess and so on... I mean, hundreds of generations have learned that the earth is the centre of the universe. It was false. And ? The change was violent and was made with a lot of blood and ugly things but it's okay, we are over it now.


But i think, and i deeply hope, that the majority of believers in this forum didn't take offence at this, in my point of view, innocent comic.
GENERATION 19: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Eugo » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:30 am UTC

cwDeici wrote:... I know it's quite a different thing to smuggle out wafers then it is to mock most aspects of Catholic Christianity. Firstly, once consecrated, the wafers represent the Body of Christ to all Christians...


Who cares? Texas, Macy's and Heineken are making a mockery of The Red Star. Should all the communists of the world be up in arms because of that?

What it represents is the private matter of the religion which uses it. Doesn't mean much to the rest of the world. These guys really need some sense of proportion.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

ibootindos
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:19 am UTC
Location: Ft. Drum, NY or Drunk somewhere
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby ibootindos » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:51 am UTC

vodka.cobra wrote:
Sprocket wrote:
Mancho wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat in as another Catholic that thinks this comic is hilarious.
religiously based humor is often funnier for those who actually believe in it whom have a sense of humor.

However, they can just go into that big machine they keep the ghosts in and get him out again. I mean sure it's dangerous but this is 1/3 of JESUS we're talking about!

Believers find it funny because they're confident it will never happen, and unbelievers find it funny in case they're wrong and they need a contingency plan. Everybody wins.



lol I'm a REAL unbeliever.. there is no 'just in case' I think its funny just because I love the ghost busters.. used to be super catholic.. so its even funnier. hah
Ubuntu makes me happy, like deep down inside happy, as in I don't even need porn anymore, I just need to see that funky little ubuntu logo and I'm good. Thanks for asking...

ibootindos
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:19 am UTC
Location: Ft. Drum, NY or Drunk somewhere
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby ibootindos » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:54 am UTC

cwDeici wrote:I only find it offensive that the Pope and his organization would have an institution of crafting falsehoods. I find 'the capture of God' so alien I can not comprehend it, find it anything more than marginally absurd and therefore funny, and much less be offended by it.


your lack of comprehension, or ability to imagine the unimaginable makes me wonder how you can believe in a being that is made of three seperate beings. lol I'll see you in the religion thread.
Ubuntu makes me happy, like deep down inside happy, as in I don't even need porn anymore, I just need to see that funky little ubuntu logo and I'm good. Thanks for asking...

ibootindos
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:19 am UTC
Location: Ft. Drum, NY or Drunk somewhere
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby ibootindos » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:59 am UTC

Zer088 wrote:great now every time i hear 'holy ghost" I'm gonna think he's like slimmer, always leaving holy water on the walls he passes through.

as for catching him, you couldn't, it's God, not a firefly
I think crossing the beams would only give him a migraine. (at worst)


He's god, a mythical fairy tale made by wishful thinkers trying to enforce laws that they had no other mean to enforce other than an all knowing boogie man. lol now its just a staple of hope for people who can't bring themselves to just believe in life, not life after death, just life. I'm not relgious, at all, I'm an atheist thru and thru.. but I believe in people. I've never caught a firefly with MY proton pack. lol
Ubuntu makes me happy, like deep down inside happy, as in I don't even need porn anymore, I just need to see that funky little ubuntu logo and I'm good. Thanks for asking...

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Eugo » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:12 am UTC

nadreck wrote:From my point of view (which has been regularly trashed by these same people) Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of gods and is as intelectually flawed as faith in any particular god.


Not necessarily - you may be confusing antitheists with atheists. Your beliefs regarding the nature of atheism may be flawed. But then, your logical error (negation of "I believe that A exists" is not "I believe that A doesn't exist", it's "I don't believe...") is common enough to be considered a fact of life.

So while I don't believe that gods (singular or plural or any) exist, I don't find the answer to the question of their existence particularly important. In a way, they do exist, just like chess exists, and just like people can play real chess without any physical figures. Or just like i exists - as an idea, which may or may not help to model some aspects of the physical universe.

Religion shouldn't be a sacred cow, just like lack of it isn't.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

User avatar
Neck Bolts
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:29 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Neck Bolts » Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:10 am UTC

Eugo wrote:
SwissArmyAnts wrote:Man, if a kid taking some crackers home from mass is enough to raise the ire of the Catholic League, I can't imagine the ruckus that this is going to cause.

All I can say is that Randall is in for some hate mail...


I had a boss who had "I can say screw them if they can't take a joke in eight languages" prominently displayed in his office.

These guys are taking themselves too seriously. Which is never healthy.


People taking themselves too seriously is what makes religions turn into very bad things on occasion. The Crusades, Salem witch trials, Manifest Destiny, 9/11, and so on and so on. That is precisely why it scares me when religious types get offended at a ghostbusters joke. That means that they take themselves too seriously, which is just plain dangerous.

Never underestimate the power of an upset religious person.
He knew with all his heart that the human situation was a frightful botch, but it was such a logical, intelligently arrived-at botch the he couldn't see how history could possibly have led anywhere else.

--Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Ghandi 2
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:40 am UTC
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Ghandi 2 » Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:53 am UTC

This comic is, unfortunately, really bad, on almost every level.

You people getting religious are missing the problem that it's not funny, Catholic or not.

Brouhaha
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:00 am UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Brouhaha » Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:00 am UTC

It's great how Darth Pope doesn't have a neck in the second panel. He must be omnipotent.

Also, DP should've blasted the Ghostbusters with Force Lightning. *FWHOOSHAGGGA*
Image
Like Tetris? Come to the Hard Drop community and join 1000+ players online!
My HD Account: Magnanimous

Zarchne
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:06 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Zarchne » Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:32 am UTC

At first, I just wanted to say that the comic was funny, but would have been funnier if the pope was just complaining about having to rewrite doctrine (rather than scripture); since, as at least one person pointed out, the Trinity isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

Having read (or at least scanned) through the comments, I’d also like to point out that the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of whom except Luke were Jews from birth) have a good sense of irony, if not humor. When “the Jews” (in fact, “all the people”) say in Matt. 27:25 “His blood be on us and on our children!” the point is that although they thought at the time that they were letting themselves be cursed, the fact is that it was through his blood, his death, that God’s grace (which includes the forgiveness of sins) became available on a permanent basis. So later in Rev. 7:14 John reports seeing “a great multitude… from every nation” who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Well, that would include people who were there, and their decendents. Not that Christians haven’t, from time to time, misused the verse anyway…

Oh, and to the people who think, as I first thought, that they could just let Him (or Her, if you like) out of the trap… I figure that, as they did with Gozer, they had already banished Her (by, you know, crossing themselves —maybe— and then crossing the streams).

(Scripture quotes are RSV/CE, BTW.)

martiancyclist
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:10 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby martiancyclist » Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:46 am UTC

I've been reading XKCD for a while, but have stayed out of the forum, lest I distract myself overmuch, but I couldn't not comment on this --

I'm a Christian, and not only am I not offended by the idea of containing God, I am thrilled by the beautiful (though likely unintentionally so) portrayal of Christianity here. We're all about God being captured and contained!

So Christians wouldn't think that a Person of the Trinity can't be contained, right? Well...

Christ was inside the womb of his Mother. And he fit. Completely. He who created the universe fit inside a womb.

But could the Holy Ghost be trapped? To such an extent that an archetypical churchman assumes He's beyond recovery?

Christ was killed, and sealed in a tomb. His disciples assumed it would be permanent.

So I can only assume that the Holy Ghost would allow Himself to be betrayed by one of His followers, and be captured with proton beams -- perhaps even proton beams in the form of a Cross, only to trample down containment with containment, and on those in the storage unit, bestowing discorporeal life. Slightly blasphemous? Perhaps. But so was the Incarnation, and so was the Crucifixion. Heretical? Quite likely; please don't take my word here for official doctrine. I'm merely speculating.

User avatar
nadreck
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: Calgary Canada
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby nadreck » Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:01 am UTC

Eugo wrote: But then, your logical error (negation of "I believe that A exists" is not "I believe that A doesn't exist", it's "I don't believe...") is common enough to be considered a fact of life.

So while I don't believe that gods (singular or plural or any) exist, I don't find the answer to the question of their existence particularly important. In a way, they do exist, just like chess exists, and just like people can play real chess without any physical figures. Or just like i exists - as an idea, which may or may not help to model some aspects of the physical universe.

Religion shouldn't be a sacred cow, just like lack of it isn't.


Well I am sorry but I can't accept a statement of: "I don't believe that gods exist" is not equivalent to "I believe gods don't exist". Of course I am not talking about god or gods as acknowledged invented fictions like Sherlock Holmes or the Scarlet Pimpernell, in that sense many thousands of gods exist.

If I ask "does one or more gods exist as sentient beings" and I receive as a reply: "I don't know" then I see that as a failure to have positive or negative 'gnosis' and label that as agnostic

If instead I get a repaly saying "they do not exist" and but amtold that this is not a belief in the non-existence of god then I feel I am witnessing self deception.
When someone blunders, we say that he makes a misstep. It is clear that all the: ills of mankind, tragic misfortunes that fill our history books, political blunders, failures of great leaders; arise merely from the lack of skill in dancing. Molière

serenity79
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:57 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby serenity79 » Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:08 am UTC

Gosh, you're all so serious.
My first thought upon reading this was "I ain't afraid of no Pope."

User avatar
linguistic
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby linguistic » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:04 am UTC

This thread spiders all over the place. Makes for an interesting read.

Some thoughts:

1) Not that I think it should be significant, but I'm Catholic and Ghostbusters fan and I didn't find the comic particularly funny. I certainly didn't find it offensive in any way. I liked the "full flesh" pope juxtapositioned with the normal stick figures though, props for that.

2) Re: "people taking home crackers" post. This shows a distinct lack of sensitivity (and understanding) that is as crass and undignified as the religious extremists of any faith and denomination. The anti-religious "zealots" (for want of a better term) appear to be far more voracious and aggressive than the "religious" posters here. Religion has a generally bad image amongst those of my generation - I'd like to think that those of us with critical minds who choose our faiths (including atheism) carefully can act and speak with dignity and respect - regardless of the choices of others. I find it heartening that the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread are mature and thoughtful.

3) Re: anti-relativism and the post touching on it. I find it odd that such an (obviously or not) unschooled idea that the Church (note the capital) could or would "rewrite scripture" would offend you so terribly - as opposed to, say, something far more real and physical for example, depriving someone of the necessities of life. I prefer to worry about the matters of the here and now, but then, I also don't see the attraction to the ideals that so detest relativism, so that's hardly unexpected.

In my mind, worrying about the afterlife is a nonsensical passtime. Those of us on earth now are here to live and to live well - that's my concern.
Son of a bit!

thebeaky
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 11:27 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby thebeaky » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:12 am UTC

I know him, does that make any difference to the debate?

Domovoi
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:37 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Domovoi » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:16 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:
I object to your not distinguishing between 'the Romans' and 'a bunch of Roman rulers in that area from 2000 years ago.' It's as if all us Romans had a personal hand in the matter of oppressing Israel back then. :P


Well now I seem like a hypocrite don't I :)?


Nah, I just thought it was amusing. It's just that I'm kind of tired of having to dance around the J-word (the J-word being Jew, not Jesus, Jerusalem or Jambalaya.) when discussing the crucifixion because as soon as you mention that some of the people who had a hand in the whole arrest and crucifixion thing were, like most inhabitants of Jerusalem, Jewish, people start shouting antisemitism. You have to be overly detailed about which particular subset of Jews, which in no way means all Jews, but people who, according to accounts, were Jewish, not saying that all Jews are responsible, mind you, et cetera. Anyone with half a mind knows who you're talking about and that it doesn't mean "The entire Jewish population of the world from then on until the end of time", but you still have to be extremely careful about it because some nonsensical people take offense. And at the same time, you can just say "the Romans." Or "the Catholics", or "the Germans", when speaking of other atrocities without having to specify that it was a particular group of power-hungry Catholics/Germans at a certain period in history while most of the general Catholic/German population at the time had no say or want in the matter whatsoever.
Last edited by Domovoi on Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:22 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Domovoi
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:37 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Domovoi » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:22 am UTC

MalumOpus wrote:Gah, I thought I'd read a few more 'offended' posts, but when I looked back over the thread the only one had been the one by hawk1106.


Not to single you out, but that's kind of what I was getting at. I'm noticing that a lot of atheists (I have no idea if you're one, by the way) have this idea that religious people will all get up in arms and offended whenever something even mentions religion in a humorous context. As if all religious people are humorless sub-humans who can only respond in knee-jerk reactions. The folly of which, in my opinion, was illustrated by the "in before the religious whining" (yes, I'm paraphrasing) posts that made up a large part of the replies while there was eventually just a single guy who took offense.


Domovoi wrote:Hmm - with reference to the first part of your quote, I think mine was the only post to use the word zealot actually! :P


Touché, but I think you know what I meant. :)

Ezbez
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby Ezbez » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:55 am UTC

sje46 wrote:Also,
what's the deal with capitalized He? I mean, come on. Is it a sin not to? I just get annoyed, I guess. That is why I always refer to God as he.


I agree, why must "they" do this? I just had to write about a book about a preacher for English class, and I had no idea whether to say "he" (since I'm an atheist and see no reason to make additional exceptions to English) or to say "He" (since that's how the book does it, and to show respect and generally not piss off people). I settled for "He" since I don't feel like offending my teacher before even meeting him.

Would anyone here feel that me, as an athiest, saying "he" when referring to God would be offensive to Christians (or anyone else who uses that notation)?

thebeaky
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 11:27 am UTC

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby thebeaky » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:20 am UTC

I wouldnt be offended with the use of he, but I tend to use He, out of habbit and a general lack of understanding of proper english. It does however have the advantage of clarity, in a similar way to how pratchet makes death always talk with capitals.

User avatar
libra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:50 am UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: "Holy Ghost" Discussion

Postby libra » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:10 am UTC

IIRC, the term "Holy Spirit" (not "Holy Ghost") means "sacred breath." The Spirit manifested during Pentecost as a flame appearing on the foreheads of those who witnessed Christ's return, especially after Thomas poked his fingers into the wounds in Christ's body and people doubted no more.

The "breath" in this case might not have been an entity, but a moment of satori on the inbreath; the flame on the forehead is very reminiscent of the Yogic opening of the Ajna chakra (wonder where they got that from?) and the message of Pentecost was not that of imagining God as a big man resembling a bearded Charlton Heston, living on a cloud and pulling a double shift with Santa every other Christmas, but as a living force of the numinous, a Presence - that there are more things between Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

So the Ghostbusters would not just have had to cross the streams - to shoot that thing down they'd have had to aim right between the eyes.

Om shakti shakti shakti.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests