Nov 8

[Tom Mazanec]

Are you upset because the Democrats won so big yesterday? So am I...I voted pro-life (hey, is it my fault the Republicans are the pro-life party?). You say you are free to believe anything...except what you believe is true. You seem to feel persecuted in this country. My own ancestors had to face "Catholics need not apply" signs...and that was not in some strange land in the Dark Ages. You are perfectly free to believe in Biblical literalism...millions of Americans do. I am perfectly free to believe in Catholicism...millions of Americans do. People will laugh at you for believing in a six-day Creation. Get used to it. People will (and have) tell (and told) me I am going to hell for believing in Catholicism. We have had, since Roe v Wade, Republican (Nixon-Ford) Democrat (Carter) Republican (Reagan-Bush) Democrat (Clinton) and Republican (Bush Jr.) presidents...and we still have Roe v. Wade. I am sure there are many Catholics who converted to Protestantism, even to your brand of it. There are many Protestants who converted to Catholicism. Some did so for stupid reasons, like falling in love with someone of another faith. Some did so for deep reasons, like studying and being persuaded by the other faith. This is true on both sides. I have a small list of Catholic apologetics sites that have done the work of organizing a rational defense of my faith for me, just as you have a few (like answersingenesis) that have done your work for you. Noone promised that you would ever have a rose garden, and even they have thorns. I have stood outside an abortion clinic and held a sign saying "Abortion kills children" and was told to "get a job" just as I am sure liberals have mocked you. We all face arguments over our beliefs in this country. That is nothing compared to what BOTH Catholics and Protestants faced in the old country a few centuries ago, like the Thirty Years War. I have been called a nazi for being pro-life, but not too many genrations ago I would have been in chains or my grave for belonging to the "wrong" church. I don't know about you but I practice (however imperfectly) what I believe. I demonstrate it in my feeble way. It DETERMINES how I vote (and how I would govern, if I were to ever be in a position to do so). And I speak of it quite a bit (as I am doing here). You speak of what you believe quite often (and well) in your LiveJournal. I am not happy with a lot about modern society...I doubt anyone was completely happy with their society in history. But you can practice your religion with some minor discriminiation which your great-great-great-grandfather may have laughed at as trivial (depending where he lived...maybe he was the one doing the discriminating). You reach, through your comics and journal, an audience which only the great preachers of a mere century ago could even dream. If you are unhappy with this election, join the club. I have been voting for three decades, and I have been unhappy and happy with election results by turns at least several times. If some aura of "postmodern" society has ruffled your feathers, express yourself in your LiveJournal. I read that fairly often. But I read TotQ for Tales of the Questor. I have accepted the fact that you take commisions for personal cards (heck, I even paid for one myself). I know you have to pay the bills, so I just grin and bear it. I understand you are moving to a trailor, so I cannot get my Quentyn "junkie fix" as often as I crave. But please do not start speaking out against "postmodern" society in TotQ like you do in the LJ. Save that for the LJ. I understand that originally TotQ was just once a week. But lately the strips have hardly been coming at even that rate, when you factor in gaps, commissions, and now your "personnal appearances". Frankly, Ralph, your soapbox is your LiveJournal. If you want to vent, please do it there and we can comment on it there. Don't take out a TotQ day slot to "express yourself". Thank you.

[The JAM]

A Live Journal comic doesn't sound that bad, or perhaps post the Onions in one of the other two comics, or perhaps in a fourth site altogether....

[Sciguy]

Everyone has a right to what they beleave. It say so in our constitution.

But to treat it as wrong is illegal by the text of our founding laws.

As for the bible being absolute, personaly, I beleave in the law of God and the over all message, but I've loft fait in the religous structure. To this end I look at the bible with a bit of distrust.

As for eveloution, you gotta love how God works. A patient hand, a little mixing, and there you go.

[Catherine_Puce]

I'm agree with Tom Mazanec. You overeact a little. Jesus bear the cross to have demonstrate what he believes in. Missionaries become martyrs so many time that we lost the count. You will only have to bear odd stare by demonstrate your faith.

In our postmodern world be a true believer isn't a sin, it's a path covered of potholes. The isn't a fast and easy road and it's a good thing like that. Don't you remember that the truth believer will be separated of the pagan after their dead (there are a beautiful parable about that: Mt 13.24-30). Accept that situation as a challenge, a chance to test your faith.

Tu vas pouvoir remarquer si ta foi est vacillante.

S.P.P.

[Nick012000]

I beleive most of that. I'm not sure as to whether God created the world exactly as the Bible says, or if Genesis was a metaphor, though. Heck, the angel with the flaming sword standing guard over Eden could have been a metaphor- it could well have just been a laser turret (which might have been automated, or might have been manned by angels).

[Reignbow]

The main problem with letting faith guide you like that is that your motivations cannot be argued to others, except those who share your faith quite closely. Members of other religions, secularists, even christians of different leanings will not view your personal convictions as any argument of substance - nor each other's, of course. Pure belief has come to be regarded as unconvincing, mostly because so many people believe so many different things, and of course someone believes almost anything.

[Doink]

I find the Democrat's win slightly disconcerting too; from what I've read, they seem to be under the influence of a few screwballs like Maxine Waters, who they can't disobey without sacrificing their political careers.

I agree with you completely on the subject of Jesus's sacrifice, but I believe the evolution-creation debate to be about as important as the big end- small end debate that took Lilliput by storm in Gulliver's Travels. I'm not going to patronize you about it, Ralph, as you are a fellow Christian who deserves love and respect.

I'm not sure whether or not these Onions belong here or in the LiveJournal. It's a question of how important the visual aids are, and how much of their impact would be lost without them.

[Tom Mazanec]

I guess I am a little upset because of a comic being taken up by a couple "onions" in quick succession. At work we had to let go of a Jehovah's Witness, not because of the JW's faith but because said person insisted on prosletyzing at work. I "prosletize" by *occasionally* mentioning my Faith, while demonstrating it by my devotion to work. Ralph has three comics where he has demonstrated Christian values quite well (at least in the one I follow) while he has a LiveJournal where he frequently debates with us (again, quite well, even when...perhaps especially when...I disagree with him). Now we have to maybe get one TotQ strip a week, at a time we don't even know (unlike in the early days). He doesn't have to frequently appear as an onion. Maybe I am just too hungry for a Questorverse strip, I dunno. He runs three strips while my website is lucky to be updated every other month, so perhaps I shouldn't criticize.

[BrockthePaine]

To be honest, I don't see what the hubbub is about. If you'll notice, there's a Questor strip every five or six days. If you want to see fewer commissions and such, perhaps you could donate a few hundred every month or so to make drawing them unnecessary.

Everyone has a right to what they beleave. It say so in our constitution.

But to treat it as wrong is illegal by the text of our founding laws.

Um, no it's not. Read the Constitution again.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

You will only have to bear odd stare by demonstrate your faith.

That's true, for now. But the bottom line is that the world, as a whole, is starting to hate Christians more and more.

I'll say this again: eventually, Christians, even those in the US, are going to have to bear quite a bit more than just an odd stare. It might mean losing your job (I lost a job once for disagreeing with faith matters with my boss, who was a Buddhist), failing school (some of the kids of our church have been given failing grades for refusing to participate in the Halloween/Day of the Dead celebrations that public schools hold, under the pretext of "not upholding our national traditions"), being denied running water (as it's happening in Chiapas and Oaxaca because they don't worship the virgin Mary (sorry, Tom, that's what's happening there)), or when push comes to shove, well, read Matthew 24.

Now, I don't mind the Onions comic, but considering that the 3 sites have a title of a completely different comic, perhaps you could put it on another page of your sites and provide a link to the comic on the main page, while the current comic of the strip in questions remains standing until the next update?


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i. "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Dapple]

Political pescimism

1. Republican: Effective but corrupt often representing too many special interests.

2.Democrat: Basically a Republican how is less corrupt, but much less compitent.

3.Green: Enviromentalism before the public.

4.Libritatian: Who are they again.

5.Reform Party: Have they ever got one guy ellected?

[Deckard Canine]

2.Democrat: Basically a Republican how is less corrupt, but much less compitent.

Or as Mark Russell put it, there's the brainwashed side and the braindead side.

4.Libritatian: Who are they again.

Anarchists who still want working traffic lights.

5.Reform Party: Have they ever got one guy ellected?

Jesse Ventura, but he quit the party when he realized its utter lack of direction. (The Democrats are headed that way, too.)

"Postmodernism" is a broad concept such that some of my college colleagues thought it completely meaningless. Some hardballs say that it is completely unavoidable today, but even so, I expect it to pass within the century, with or without the Apocalypse. Even D.C. Simpson (if the name is not taboo here) considers it largely a wankfest, like when scholars contend that the author does not have the final word on a work's meaning, or that there is no one reality.

I am a little rattled by the rapidity of this update, since I didn't notice yesterday's until today's and then the new one came before I checked the forums. Let me just say that where theology is concerned, I am in basic agreement. I have doubts about the literalness of six-day creation (my church has no official position on it), but my real disagreement is on his point about the moral code being absolute.

...You see, it's not unspoken.

[Sciguy]

Thought:

In order to run a country on a platform of religous freedom, you have to seperate chuch and state. Base rullership on logic is the rule of thumb.

But in order to get ellected, some people make their faith an issue, and make law on faith, thus creating a slight paradox in claiming to uphold seperation while making law on such faith.

Take example the view on marrage. The main arguments are faith baised. As for the law, defining it with oir without religon becomes a hard thing to do. But if looked from the locical standpoint, to redefine it's meaning makes certain laws and insurance polocies include other people.


Oh, here's a bit of post modernist insanaty:

In NY, they're ether working on a peice of legistrature or got it through, that if you were born in NY, and your doc says so, you can have the sex changed on your birth certificate to reflect what you want, regardless of your physical sex or lack of opperation to change sex.

I beleave the term is WTF?

[BrockthePaine]

But my real disagreement is on his point about the moral code being absolute.

...You see, it's not unspoken.

Why? Every successful culture in the world has been built on a moral code which is oddly similar:
1. Murder/rape bad!
2. Lying/deception bad!
3. Stealing bad!
Those things, in all sorts of variations, end up in the legal codes of every marginally successful nation in history. Cultures which leave these out FAIL. It's almost like this unspoken moral code is the way we were meant to exist.

This moral code is absolute because it is the only thing that works!

[Tom Mazanec]

I just thirst for the Questorverse...and a commission or onions is like a glass of salt water. I see a new date on the top, eagerly look down...and it is not TotQ, even if it is on the website.
K&K have sponsors for their strips. Perhaps this: Ralph agrees to put up one Questorverse a week, on Saturday lets say, so we know when it is coming out. Then we can each sponsor a webcomic, featuring our website, for say, $20, where he puts up another. I would only be able to do one a year, but that is because I am barely above the poverty line myself (and I work full time). I am sure others could donate more frequently. This might help increase the frequency. The other commisions and onions would continue, so we would have something to discuss on the forum while waiting. When Ralph gets more on his feet, we could go back to the several TotQ strips a week. Heck, I already sent Ralph a $20 just for nothing but a donation...I am sure sponsoring a TotQ with a link to your website would increase donations (this is why I once donated to K&K). Another possibility, also used on K&K, would be to include extra in the books (I believe this was mentioned before). It was finding out that there was extra material on the CDs which convinced me to buy them (this is why I occasionally mention titbits from the CDs...to tempt you to buy them). Just want to get more Quentyn.

[Tom Mazanec]

Catholics do not worship Mary. We adore her. And depriving water to people to refuse to do that is just plain wrong, according to the Catholic religion.
I have written a series of stories where a theocratic dictatorship rises in America because of a violent reacion against the creation of anthropomorphic animals through genetic engineering, so I know that every culture can go crazy. America could go crazy in an anti-God way as well, of course...we are fairly divided between "bleeding heart liberals" and "Bible-thumping conservatives" to use each others description. I wrote my stories as a "dire warning" to prevent Christian America (my "side") from going crazy (I hope I reduced the odds by one-in-a-million at least...I also wrote them to make creation of such slave species less likely as well, of course). I hope some liberal will do the same for their side.

[MikeVanPelt]

Catholics do not worship Mary. We adore her.

That's the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, some Catholics, in violation or ignorance of that doctrine, go ... somewhat further than that.

A few years ago, there was apparantly some agitation within the Catholic Church to declare Mary to be a fourth person of the Trinity. (Then again, maybe the people reporting this got it wrong.) An active SF fan who is also a Catholic priest was on a panel at Baycon and was asked about this; he said it was wrong and would never go anywhere. Then another panelist said that there were some fairly prominent Catholics who were in favor of this, what would he do if the Pope was able to get all the Cardinals to go along with it and declared it ex cathedra?

He didn't have an answer, but he clearly found the scenario horrifying.

I guess the point of all this is ... all faiths contain some people who are in disagreement with parts of that faith, or who aren't as fully informed about that faith as they should be. You can't go too far on "doctrinal purity enforcement", either, though, or you get unnecesary Church splits.

Non-Catholics need to understand that just because some Catholic, or some group of Catholics, belive something, that doesn't necessarily mean the Catholic Church teaches that.

(Some of my fellow Baptists also believe some ... truely whacked things.)

[Deckard Canine]

You misunderstand, Brock. I do believe that morality is absolute. What I do not believe is that such is unspoken (not in my circles, anyway). I had meant to mislead you up until my last sentence, but I guess I tried too hard.

There is a word for excessive reverence of Mary: Mariolatry. Personally, I like to apply it instead to people obsessed with video game characters.

[Wanderwolf]

Everyone has a right to what they beleave. It say so in our constitution.

But to treat it as wrong is illegal by the text of our founding laws.

Um, no it's not. Read the Constitution again.

Absolutely correct, Brock. The specific text is Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't say you have to agree with it, or even respect it; just that Congress can't pass a law about it.

Yours truly,

The well-read,

Wanderer

[Forsooth]

Most of my objections would be from a different angle, but I'll agree that ToTQ deserves more emphasis. There's a lot to like in Hard Onions: the delightful drawings add a lot to the familiar arguments. Yet I don't see much of it convincing people of what's most important. C.S. Lewis's Narnia stories were excellent in presenting God's goodness, power, and grace - things postmodernism hasn't a clue about. I suspect ToTQ's own glimpses of such things do more lasting good than any political commentary.

As for the theology, it's great to see the unabashed affirmation of Genesis. I'll take the Word of God over the word of men any day. But since you strive to stand with the Bible, might I suggest more precision when it comes to Christ's saving work?

"And that, as he promised, whoever would believe he had done this ... would be redeemed."

I could quibble about words, but this is essentially John 3:16. But where does this condition in the middle come from?

"... and call upon his name, asking to become their Lord and their Savior, ...."

I don't recall seeing that in the Bible. Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, period. Nothing is said of this little prayer. Of course Christians will confess Christ, but that's the result of being cleansed, not a condition.

It may seem a petty point, but I've seen it cause a great deal of trouble. First you have the error of arrogance, that a simple prayer is a sufficient work for salvation. No, one must believe in Christ to be saved, and no one can believe of his own will and power. (Eph 2:8-10). Then you have the error on the other side, where people worry whether their prayer was sincere enough. Granted, all our actions are tainted with selfishness and idolatry - we're sinners. But Christ already carried all our sins out of his merciful love, and urgently wants us to look to him and to his saving work. (John 14:1-3)

As always, thanks for the comics.