OUDaily.com | CARTOON: Llamic — Now with lipstick!

Welcome Guest Register or Login

CARTOON: Llamic — Now with lipstick!

by Mark Potts | September 11, 2008 | 12 comments

More like this story

Chestertonian 3 years, 8 months ago

Reproving Pharisees. Driving money changers out of the Temple. Golgotha.

Even without all the miracles, saying Jesus went around talking about his faith is like saying Julius Caesar went around drilling troops. It's like saying Joan of Arc went around talking to French soldiers. It's like saying Columbus studied navigation. You've picked out some small aspect and missed the mission.

If you want a mere moral teacher, go find one. Don't strip the Christian God of everything He did.

BrianCBiggs 3 years, 8 months ago

Wow... I'm not sure where to start... first off, the term "God's will" can refer to several things, and saying that the Iraq War is God's will can mean a variety of things... (many of which I would certainly not agree with). But regardless of what Palin has said about the Iraq War, it does not follow that "violence is the best way to spread God's word." The war in Iraq is certainly not about spreading God's Word. I am pretty tired of conservative (theologically or politically) Christians being portrayed as lovers of violence or 'fundamentalists' (a widely misused term!) who want to hurt or kill those who don't strictly adhere to their beliefs. I know this is a comic strip, but it still should address actual positions and issues, not caricatures!

Now as far as Jesus is concerned, I think that you should read the New Testament again. Also, I think you ought to rethink your ideas on free will. Now, I'm Reformed (that is, a Calvinist), so I don't believe the Bible ever teaches or suggests that we have libertarian free will, but compatiblism. But, even if we had libertarian free will, what you suggest still doesn't make any sense. God gave us commandments and He wants us to obey them! Jesus, the disciples, John the Baptist (and many more) called people to repentance. Jesus pointed out other people's sin quite a bit - He also is going to judge the world. He isn't just some man who had suggestions for other people, He is their Creator!

I don't believe it is ridiculous to presume what Jesus's (that is, God's) stance on an issue would be - the Bible is the sufficient, excellent, infallible Word of God. It tells us what Jesus said about many issues and it is sufficient to teach the Christian.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

BrianCBiggs 3 years, 8 months ago

BriceB, I hope you don't continue to argue against the freedom to act on convictions because you disagree with a specific conviction. Also, my insistence that there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible may have become 'rigid,'d but it is still correct. If the Bible is actually saying something meaningful, then there must be things it is not saying (read Anthony Flew's famous paper on falsification - I believe agree with it until the last paragraph). Anyway, I have not claimed my interpretation is the correct one (though I wouldn't currently hold it if I thought it to be wrong); I would, however, say that I am striving to arrive at the correct one - there have been many times when I have changed my views in the past about certain passages and doctrines.

BriceB 3 years, 8 months ago

Dear Brian, The statement, "Now as far as Jesus is concerned, I think that you should read the New Testament again." is simply not an argument. Your underlining assumption holds that Mr. Potts has not read the Christian bible...this simply may not be the case. Furthermore, by instilling this assumption it likewise could be said that you are attempting to assault the convictions Mr. Potts retains as a Christian (if in fact he is a Christian). I point this out because I am certain you would not want to assault in such degree...being a studied Calvinist as you are. I'm also not quite sure how you correlate Old Testament teachings with those of Jesus in the New Testament i.e. The Ten Commandments role certainly after the golden rule comes into play? Your reversion into semantics is also quite unsettling...Mr. Pott's definition of 'free will' is clearly wrought out within the confines of the short comic above- implementing your own convictions only detracts from your argument. Perhaps you are correct for the inclusion of the passage from Timothy, yet something here is troubling me also. Oh thats right... though all scripture may be inspired by God, all interpretation is not. You interpret that Jesus would dictate his beliefs onto everybody, and that's fine... it is your right as an American to believe that. Mr. Potts conversely believes that Jesus may not be... umm as much as a dictator, which in turn is his right. I leave you with this, you have shown a certain 'finesse' within the confines of Scripture, however you may want to study some history outside of Biblical context. What happens to the common person when their leaders are solely lead by what they interpret to be 'God's will'... there is good reason our forefathers thought that separation of church/state was a good thing...

As for the second comment... you scare me and I won't even respond to your convictions, go buy a punching bag or something.

Thanks, MP for the llamic.

nich8627 3 years, 8 months ago

Way to go Mark! Congratulations on turning a cartoon strip into a means by which to push a political agenda.

BrianCBiggs 3 years, 8 months ago

BriceB,

The problem is that government creates policy, laws, etc. which are ethical in nature. Any ethical position is always derived from some epistemology. The Christian epistemology puts the Bible as its ultimate authority (Sola Scriptura). So, asking Christian politicians to only defer to the Word of God in personal situations is to divorce them from the basis for their political views. And before anyone cries, "Theocracy!," I am going to point out that I am not arguing for forcing people to become Christians, or making this a "Christian Nation," or anything of the sort. I am simply pointing out that a Christian's ethics are drawn from the Biblical word-view.

Then again, perhaps men who held religious convictions about slavery (such as William Wilberforce) should not have "use[d] their beliefs to justify situations that extend beyond the personal realm[.]"

One more thing, I stand by my statement about there being only one correct interpretation of any given passage of Scripture. Simply pointing out that not everyone knows which interpretation is correct does not negate that only one is. Neither does the fact that many people earnestly believe in incorrect interpretations.

BriceB 3 years, 8 months ago

The second comment on the board scared me "Reproving Pharisees" and such.

So it is settled? You are for leaving choice up to the individual? I concede to you that politicians should not be forced to strip their beliefs to lead, however they should at no point ever (with emphasis) use their beliefs to justify situations that extend beyond the personal realm (which I think is the crux for this particular llamic). On a final note the phrase "one correct interpretation" seems to have a subtle contradiction, I believe that you would agree with me that neither you nor I, nor anyone else for that matter is of the quality to judge said 'interpretations'.

BrianCBiggs 3 years, 8 months ago

BriceB,

I will concede that telling Mr. Potts to read the NT is not an argument. Now, as far as how the Ten Commandments and the Law relate to NT teaching, I can go into that if you really want me to, but it seems a bit off topic. And I don't think making my convictions known, then arguing from a hypothetical point of view detracts from my argument.

It is true that not all interpretation is inspired by God; in fact, I would not say any interpretation is. However, there is one correct interpretation for every passage and, while some passages are more difficult than others, it is my contention that with due study one can come to the correct understanding of a passage. And it is not my belief that Jesus would 'dictate his beliefs onto everybody.' Once again, my belief is that Jesus, as God and Creator (Col 1:16) has given us commands (Matt 28:18-20), which is a bit different than Mr. Pott's view.

I have studied history not found in the Bible. Also, I do, as a Baptist, wholeheartedly agree with the separation of Church and State, as given in the Establishment Clause. I do not want the government involved in ecclesiastical matters. And I certainly don't want the government to force everyone to be a Christian (which is impossible by the Biblical definition of a Christian). I, however, do not support the separation of government officials and their religious convictions.

I am not sure what I have said that scares you, so I'm going to hold off on buying a punching bag...

BriceB 3 years, 8 months ago

And then again perhaps women who hold religious convictions on current wars (such as Sarah Palin) should not. As far as the 'one correct interpretation' argument is concerned it has become rigid, and I hope you are able to question your own interpretations above all others.

BriceB 3 years, 8 months ago

Again, I've never claimed to believe that elected officials should divorce their religious views upon inauguration, "I concede to you that politicians should not be forced to strip their beliefs to lead." However, elected officials must avoid justification of public policies (successful or failed) by retorting their own personal convictions. I also never accused your interpretations as being false or true. I merely suggested that you keep an open mind, questioning all interpretations including (especially) your own (as I do of mine).

BrianCBiggs 3 years, 8 months ago

I understand that you "never claimed to believe that elected officials should divorce their religious views upon inauguration," but you undermine that in the next sentence. If elected officials are not to justify their decisions in office using their own beliefs, whose beliefs are they to justify them with? I expect an official to make decisions based what they hold to be true. Where I think we would agree is that a politician should not justify their decision by arguing ONLY that they "hold such and such belief." I believe a politician has the right to give such an answer, but it is a poor politician who would give a one-sentence explanation that most would find unconvincing. And, upon re-reading some of your earlier statements, I would agree with you that if an official's decisions are based merely on what they feel to be God's Will - with no further explanations of how they are arrived at the conclusion it is God's Will and no arguments other than it is God's Will - then I would find that politician unconvincing and dangerous.