The Jesus and Mo artist is back from hols. The email announcing the latest strip, called “cast”, came with this note:
I think this is the first time the boys have ever got one over on the barmaid.
The boys are pulling the “safe space gambit”, as well as the “you are erasing us” ploy; and the barmaid, like all good liberals, is sucked in:
17 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ erasure”
I heard (again) the other day that belief about god is “very personal”.
I was struck by that – “personal”. Is that the same “personal” as in … what, underwear? How you brush your teeth? Your diet? Your hygiene? One’s footwear? What bike you ride?
It is puzzling…
Pizza toppings was what I was looking for! Personal Pizza Toppings – my Deeply Held Pizza Toppings are not up for debate!
Agreed. Pineapple on pizza is an abomination up with which I will not put. It is triggering for me so do not put pineapple on your pizza in my presence.
In fact, I’m, literally shaking at the thought of pineapple on pizza. You’re a fascist and a bigot for even bringing it up.
[this is intended as parody, in case anybody wants to complain that I insulted another poster in contravention of Da Roolz. ThyroidPlanet is lovely really]
[ “LOL” – but really not out loud ]
But whatabout in a calzone?
…. [ re-reads to make sure … ]
“ThyroidPlanet is lovely really”
Oh dear, what have I done … or maybe it’s a Brit expression I don’t grasp…
My story about Calzone: The first time I had calzone I went to a pizza takeaway with a friend and we ordered one not knowing the fundamental thing about calzone. We took it home and were mightily disappointed to discover we had been given an enormous lump of pizza dough. So we took it back to complain. The proprietor was very nice about it and made us an “open calzone” – once he’d stopped pissing his pants laughing.
People can believe what they want (within reasonable bounds) if it makes them feel better about themselves. But if they discusses it with me, relates their beliefs to reality, or tries to convince me, I get to pounce. However, I guess it is the case that most people want to believe that their religious beliefs are true.
“But if they discusses it with me, relates their beliefs to reality, or tries to convince me, I get to pounce.”
Exactly – where is the line for that? And is such a line respected on either side?
Consider : a bumper sticker advertising faith as somehow related to the heartbeat of a fetus. Is such a display – at the public-private interface – consistent with a “personal” god?
I don’t know of a ‘line for that’. This, like many other things in life, is subjective. I use my judgement every time. I would not consider ‘heartbeat of a fetus’, assuming that it is related to religion, a personal matter. I think that sort of thing is related to legislation that applies to others. I know people who keep their religion to themselves and they don’t flaunt it on bumper stickers.
“..I guess it is the case that most people want to believe that their religious beliefs are true.”
Sometimes I wonder whether I’m in a minority on the following: Is it even possible to HOLD a religious belief but also believe that belief is NOT true?
Anyway my little joke is that my personal belief as follows is deeply held and the personal core of my being, not to be disputed by anyone:
I believe the kind of non-Plato platonism that not only accepts abstract objects, mathematical objects, but believes that, at core there is nothing else which exists.
“Is it even possible to HOLD a religious belief but also believe that belief is NOT true?”
Whatever the solution to that is, the beliefs will need to be updated – Bayes’ Theorem style.
… belief in belief is one thing, but clearly, belief is not fixed.
And now I have written “belief” so many times I am dizzy… what is it about the word “belief”? Sounds so… something…
Right. I did not write that well. I wanted to exclude people who carry out rituals for cultural reasons, not because they think there is anything ‘supernatural’ about it. All those with whom I have discussed the matter believe their religion to be true.
I understand ‘believe X’ to mean ‘believe that X is true’. So to believe X while not believing that X is true is a bit bizarre 🙂
I was expecting the last frame to say something like:
[Jesus] “Now, about your blasphemous atheism”
[Mo] “Yes, we have a lot of interrogatory questions about that”
If J & M were really playing the performative safe space act they would not break character.
True, but I assumed they were making fun of it. It might be time for the author to introduce a new character. I’m not going to back the ‘PC is a religion’ claim yet. How many other characters are in the strip, beyond J&M, the bartender, and Moses?
According to Wikipedia Ganesha and Joseph Smith have made appearances. And Mo is supposed to be a body double of Mo.
J & M validity as human beings??? So it came to pass, a barmaids’ truth, it’s just two blokes in a bar!