Less any sort of odyssey, more a trip to the local Denny's.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Twitter
Upcoming Episodes
- 4/7: SCI-Spy #5
- 4/14: Red Hood and the Outlaws #1
- 4/21: Athena #2
- 4/28: Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey #1
- 5/5: Zolastraya and the Bard #1
- 5/12: Superman: For the Animals #1
- 5/19: Chuck Norris: Karate Kommandos #2
- 5/26: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie #1
About Me
Links
Blog Archive
Labels
- AP Comics (2)
- Ape Entertainment (1)
- AQLA (6)
- Arcana (1)
- Archie (4)
- AT4W (431)
- Avatar Press (1)
- Batman (28)
- Blackthorne Publishing (2)
- Blood Eagle (1)
- bloopers (3)
- Bluewater Productions (2)
- Bongo Comics (2)
- Boom (1)
- Brainstorm Comics (1)
- Brick Computer Science Institute (1)
- Card Games (14)
- Catfish Comics (1)
- CI5P (11)
- Clamp (1)
- commentary (19)
- contest (2)
- Continuity Comics (1)
- Conventions (41)
- Crossover (45)
- Dark Horse (12)
- DC (111)
- Dell (1)
- Draculina Publishing (1)
- Dreamwave (1)
- DVD (2)
- Dynamite (2)
- Edfund (1)
- Eternity Comics (1)
- Fantagraphics (1)
- Gold Key (3)
- Good News Everyone (2)
- Hamilton (2)
- Harvey Comics (2)
- HOPR (17)
- ID (1)
- IDW (20)
- Image (27)
- INKS Comics (1)
- Interview (34)
- Invincible Press (1)
- Kickassia (8)
- Lightbringer (1)
- Longbox of the Damned (64)
- LPEF (9)
- LPPO (9)
- Magnum (1)
- Malibu (2)
- Marvel (104)
- Maximum Press (3)
- Miller Time (11)
- MN Productions (1)
- Moment of Awesome (6)
- Monsterverse (1)
- Now (3)
- Panels (2)
- Parody Press (1)
- Platinum (1)
- podcast (39)
- Pointless Optimism (1)
- power morphicon (5)
- PSA Hell (13)
- Renegade Press (1)
- Review (1)
- Revolution of the Mask (8)
- Revolutionary Comics (2)
- rifftrax (12)
- Scholastic (1)
- Shameless Self-Promotion (3)
- Solson Publications (3)
- Special (1)
- Spider-Man (30)
- Stan Lee Media (1)
- Star Comics (5)
- Star Trek (16)
- Suburban Knights (10)
- Superhero Comics Motif (1)
- Superman (23)
- TAIS (12)
- Tandy Computers (5)
- Teen Titans (9)
- Titans (9)
- To Boldly Flee (12)
- Top 15 (3)
- Topps (3)
- Trailer (4)
- Twilight Twins Productions (1)
- Ultimate Creations (1)
- Ultimate Warrior (5)
- Unleashed (1)
- Valiant (4)
- Vertigo (6)
- Victory Comics (1)
- Viz Comics (1)
- vlog (32)
- webcomic (1)
- Whitman Publishing (1)
- Wildstorm (4)
- Wonder Woman (4)
- X-Men (1)
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Guys? You do realize you're arguing not just about a comic-book depiction of Jesus, but a dream sequence about Jesus in a comic book. Even the characters in the book don't think Jesus actually did this.
Silly Pop -
Important safety tip, thanks! :)
Carl -
I agree; in this particular case, being a dream sequence makes it far less offensive than it could've been.
I still think battle thongs are a bad tactical choice. The wedgies alone would be debilitating.
What an awful comic!
Anonymous, I'm not going to argue, but I still say you're an idiot, and I'm sticking to my guns. From what I've read of the bible and its apocrypha, Jesus was just as capable of pulling off what he did in this comic, given a good reason or no reason whatsoever (there's even an apocryphal text that says he killed someone on the spot as a kid simply because he bumped into the guy on accident), and I see him as being perfectly justified in beating down the pantheon. I don't see any of what you're arguing about at all.
And don't you even try to pull that bs of "it's a tree, not a person, so it's okay if he kills it for an object lesson". Jesus was supposed to be a friend to ALL LIVING THINGS. Killing a tree as a demonstration, especially for the "sin" of not bearing fruit, is stupid and out of character for him, in my opinion. I've read the scriptures that includes it, and I see absolutely no reason or moral lesson given at all for why he killed the tree. In all honesty, using killing a perfectly healthy tree that doesn't bear fruit as an object lesson is idiotic, no matter WHO does it. What's the object lesson? "A tree that doesn't give fruit that people can eat is useless"? It gives off oxygen for us to breathe, it gives shade, and you can use the wood and leaves for other things. Logically, there's a TON of things that a tree that doesn't bear fruit can do, if it's perfectly healthy, otherwise. Honestly, the message I get from those two demonstrations is that, if something doesn't hold up to YOUR personal specifications (like the tree not producing fruit), even if it's perfectly fine, otherwise and can be useful in other ways, it's useless to you and must be destroyed for the good of your vision, something that I don't think either Gandhi OR Jesus would tout.
I'm sorry, but I say you're an idiot with this, and I'm not going to argue about this any more. Jesus and Gandhi was a prick to the trees, and in the comic he was perfectly justified in doing what he did in the comic. In my opinion, it wasn't about selfish pride, it was about protecting what he was doing and the people he was doing it for, and if that isn't noble enough for you, then frankly, you have no soul.
Okay, kids, calm the hell down - I don't appreciate people calling each other idiots on my blog. You two are not going to agree on this, end of story. Discussion DONE.
Linkara, If you will allow me one response?
Synjo,
You are wrong on every single count. Sorry, but your FEELINGS and WANTS do not
count as credible reasons for reinterpretation of a text.
1. The apoc. that you mention (the Gospel of Thomas)? Forgetting the fact that scholars
doubt it's authenticity (given that the author made errors insofar as Hebrew culture), forgetting that
that particular story wasn't even in the original Thomasian manuscript, forgetting all that....you forget that in that story that the child Jesus was made to reverse everything he did and that he swore to never harm a sentient life again. Therefore, your
argument fails because it neglects the most important part of that story: that he would never do it again.
2. Once gain your lack of understanding insofar as even the basics of Judaic teaching methods and ANE/Indian Revoutionary history and even the bare bones
of Christian texts is astonishing.
A. Throughout the gospel of Matthew, before AND after the cursing of the tree, Jesus makes frequent reference to
"bearing fruit" (that is to not simply have a an empty faith for show and social benefits but to actually live one's faith).
So you are incorrect: it was part of a clear, long term lesson being taught for the benefit of others: a society needing moral action
more than empty platitudes.
B. You are telling me, that one fig tree, not bearing fruit, barren, should be preserved simply for aesthetics or for oxygen (when there is a WHOLE
orchard bearing doing all that PLUS bearing fruit)? You've clearly completely missed the point of the passage. I won't even go into the
ludicrous anachronism of expecting a holy man living in 1st century Palestine to explain to his fellows the nature of the carbon cycle while he
is attempting to make a social/religious commentary. Not to mention the fact that you are attempting to say that a political demonstration
to rally a people to oppose the rape of their land and culture by an oppressive outside government is secondary to foilage is not only
ridiculous and illogical, but also offensive.
C. According to the Christian doctrine, Jesus was primarily concerned with HUMAN life:
A sentient orgnism able to choose right and wrong, the imago dei. A tree is not going to be high on
his list of concerns (especially since trees do not feel pain or have existential angst). Same for Ghandi A society languishing
under the selfishness of its rulers or the impotence of its religious leaders, has bigger concerns than a Captain Planet episode.
As you can see, your argument there is also false.
D. You are ONCE AGAIN attempting to compare human life with that of a plant and failing to make any kind of connection or logical sense. So
the suffering of the people is second to the extinction of a plant
3. It was an ego trip. A temper tantrum thrown by a man whose pride overrode his mission for others. That was something Jesus
would never have sat for.
Here are some books to further illustrate my point:
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craid Keener
The Bible Knowledge Commentary by the Dallas Seminary
Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolution by Green
I answered your points with logic and a critical analysis based on study and an investigation of the scholarly consensus.
Your response was an incoherent screed, based on nothing more than an emotional plea.
You've got nothing, SD. You have no grasp of the literature (. You have no clue about the history. your awareness of the social issues behind this
case is laughable. Your logic (such as it is ) is catastrophically flawed. You have failed.
Once again, you have proven that your "guns" are full nothing but duds.
I apologize for taking up your thread, Linkara. But I couldn't let this slide.
Anonymous, you have said your peace and SD you have said yours.
END OF DISCUSSION. I will not allow any more posts through on this matter.
JESUS CHAN vs. ZEUS LEE!
Lewis, they're making a movie based on Godyssey.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36203
im not a christian but um...yeahh not exactly comfortable with this.
...Wouldn't it be immortal combat?
Post a Comment