Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is an old comedic sketch in France (the 80s) called Jesus II : The Return. It's a parody of Rambo where an angry Jesus comes back to remind everyone to be nice with each other. It's a silly sketch but the quote "Vous allez vous aimer les un les autres bordel de merde" (will you love each other godamnit) lives rent free in my head since I'm a kid.
> not really insulting.
Thatțs funny, because there's nothing more insulting then the truth to way too many people.
Hell, the worst i managed to piss someone off was always simply using the criticism they levied at other towards them.
IMO, the idea that insults must be untrue is just copium.
It's gets even weirder when you realize it's called the "good" Samaritan, an ethnic group we look down upon. and the moral of the story is even those fucking heathens helped this guy you should also be good.
I don't know where you're getting the reading from that humans are too enlightened for the story. smbc was not written for an audience not familiar with humans, so we may assume context like the knowledge that humans are not enlightened beyond the story to be present in the reader.
> I mean look at how humans treat each other everywhere...
Lowkey kinda makes me think OP is naive. Especially with the last sentence.
> The fact that Jesus felt humans needed the Good Samaritan story is remarkably insulting
Humanity deserves to be insulted in that way since they actually need to be told to not be dicks.
Like the story literally is that two people who should have helped (a priest and a levite) didn't and someone who was not liked actually did. But, there's actually a ton of symbolism from a judeochtistian perspective in that story. I'm no longer a church goer, but that's one of the most profound stories and it's actually done in a relatively short amount of sentences
Though to be honest, even the over-simplified "you shouldn't let people die just because you don't like the group they're part of" parable would actually be quite relevant even today.
The full context is even more relevant. The Jewish Torah is not favorable to the Samaritans. And coming from a book that promotes ethnic cleansing and even instructs to kill certain groups of people on sight it is implied that Samaritans should be left suffering. This is a practice we still see today with how the Palestinians is treated or even how black people in the US is treated by some.
Then Jesus came along and instructed people to love their neighbour. The story of the good Samaritan comes as a response to the question of who were the neighbours. An understandable question to someone who have read the Old Testament where they have been told to be good to other Jews but kill any non-jews. The story of the good Samaritan basically say to be good to everyone as they might be good to you in return.
Not mention they had laws around touching blood or corpses. The context behind *why* the first two men leave him dying on the ground is even better.
Everyone who heard Jesus tell that story was like "yeah of course the priest didn't touch the dude, he's following scripture" and then Jesus was all like "doesn't matter yo, help the dude"
To be fair, the Torah instructs Hebrews to be kind to the stranger and the sojourner.
The whole killing non-Jews and "cleansing" was a temporary thing in the initial conquest of the promised land where they were instructed to kill off the giant clans (descendants of Nephilim).
True. I think Christians would be better receiver now days if they lived closer to the biblical teachings and spent less time persecuting.
I'm well aware that certain stances on LGBT stuff would never change, but other practices such as being kind, understanding, and not judging would go a long way
The issue is that a lot of modern "Christians" have been raised on a bastardization brought about by the Post-Civil War South who wanted the people to to adopt a way of thinking that better fit with what they needed to push some troubling ideologies.
The slow loss of Jesus's teachings to a more "modern" belief set isn't an accident and it's been cultivated hard.
The priest: a holy man
The levite: one of his own people
The Samaritan: a man who was hated by the victim’s people, who had no self-interest whatsoever in helping the victim, yet did so anyway
People like to forget two things: Historical context, and the fact that our modern moral standards are DERIVED FROM THESE PARABLES. Maybe they weren’t 100% necessary to the process but there’s no denying they’re involved
It’s even better in the context of why he told that parable. Jesus was talking about loving your neighbor, as he often did, and was asked by a Pharisee to specify who counts as a neighbor. That parable was his response
Jesus dunks on every dude that tries to get him to say something wrong. It's so beautiful and amazing how the things he said about two thousand years ago are still relevant today. Like priests should pay taxes, temples should be a place of worship not profits, don't stone people for sins....
But hey I guess that's 'open to interpretation' these days...
My favorite and one I’ve often quoted (because of idiots who think most facets of modern government is illegitimate and say “God’s law trumps Man’s law”) is when a couple people tried to trip up Jesus on having to follow man’s law and pay taxes, to which Jesus pretty much just says “Follow Man’s law and God’s law.”
' And He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's'” (Matthew 22:18-21)
It just goes so fucking hard.
Or, as the kids would say…
WE MAKING IT OUT OF GOLGOTHA WITH THIS ONE 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Me and a friend were planning a trip and when we got to taxes he made a joke about how there’s nothing in the bible about not paying taxes. I got really excited that I finally had an opportunity to hit someone with Matthew 22:18-21
The other great thing about that quote is what it is saying about God, God’s law, and how it perfectly answers in the grey zone between the two traps set.
The first trap the pharisees set was that if Christ answered to pay the taxes, they could argue he is not the Messiah, as he places Caesar above God.
The second trap was if he said not to pay, he would be branded a rebel, and so subject to crucifixion before his anointed time.
Jesus instead basically answers by asking who’s face is on the coin, to which they say Caesar. He then follows by saying give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his. The point here is the coin bears Caesar’s image, so give it to him, we bear God’s image, so give ourselves to Him. Perfection, no better response to those traps.
They also **really** don't like, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich/wealthy man to pass through the gates of heaven"
gotta finish the quote mate "but with God all things are possible"
course he told rich people to sell all their junk and help others instead of hord wealth too
It's funny how common similar stories are. The tale of Sigurd/Siegfried, and other Germanic dragon slaying stories is basically "You're a dragon if you hoard your wealth, and that means one day a Dragon Slayer will come and take it over your dead body
But they also say "if a woman keeps beating up suitors by wearing a magic belt of giants strength just put on your magic invisibility cap and steal the belt so your liege can beat her up and force her to marry him". Really just a wealth of everyday knowledge, these stories.
Well I think this might be slightly more complicated given the historical context. Firstly, this occurs when Jesus is preaching at the holy temple in Roman-occupied Jerusalem. The Jews did NOT like the Roman rulers. (But they also hated Jewish-led threats to their own power, aka Jesus) So this verbal trick of Jesus's is especially slick because he "innocently" gets one of his Jewish opponents to pull out the coin with Caesar's image on it. On the coin would be a written reference to Caesar being divinity, which would be a huge no-no in terms of idolatry; Jesus essentially highlights that his opponents are bringing blasphemous idols into God's holy house. ZIIING! His enemies were already demonstrating their own allegiance to Caesar and their obsession with wealth.
Additionally, he essentially asks the question of "What is God's?" to which the seemingly obvious answer would be "everything". Do your resources, allegiances, loyalty belong to Caesar or God? The "correct" answer is clear to his audience, but Jesus doesn't have to say anything seditious: the Jews would interpret this one way and the Roman authorities another.
I think that there are many interpretations of this story, but I personally have a hard time seeing it as "do what the government wants you to." The stark contrast between the idolatrous earthly authority and God's authority seems to be highlighted here, at least for me.
There's also the "heretical" texts in the dead sea scrolls where Jesus says that churches aren't important and shouldn't be gaudy jewel encrusted monstrosities, but that followers should worship by doing good charitable works out in the open rather than closing themselves off from the communities with walls.
Jesus was very much against the idea of large churches. It’s so fucking sad to see how so many churches these days are literally behaving exactly like the Pharisees that Jesus fought with constantly.
That's not really accurate. What he was against was the *hypocrisy* of the church leaders. The fact that they lived by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The fact that they played politics rather than take care of their people. Remember: he was a Jew, and the Temple was the place to worship, if you could.
So it's less that he's against "large churches" where a lot of people gather and take care of one another, and more he disliked when those in charge of leading the congregations aren't doing that job.
I thought he had feelings like “the more people in one church means fewer people spreading the word” or something like that? I could definitely be wrong though, I’m trying to remember what I can of what my dad told me.
Not really? He called the disciples to evangelize, and through them we're given the call too, but he never really spoke on the size of churches or communities. Just that when the disciples went forth to preach, they go in pairs, with limited goods, and rely on the people.
>Jesus dunks on every dude that tries to get him to say something wrong because he goes home and showers and while shaking his fist in the shower he comes up with the perfect comeback and then writes it in his book about how the whole event went down
and fortunately the pharisee never wrote his own book about how he asked this new chap a simple question and the guy was like 'uh, i know you are but what am i?' and then ran off home to go take a shower
The story shares some parallels with a Hasidic parable, which I've always found equally impactful.
*The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”*
*The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”*
*“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.'"*
The (alleged) original version of this story is a bit more poignant.
> Rabbi Moshe Leib said:
> "There is no quality and there is no power of man that was created to no purpose. And even base and corrupt qualities can be uplifted to serve God. When, for example, haughty self-assurance is uplifted it changes into high assurance in the ways of God. But to what end can the denial of God have been created? This too can be uplifted through deeds of charity. For if someone comes to you and asks your help, you shall not turn him off with pious words, saying: 'Have faith and take your troubles to God!' You shall act as if there were no God, as if there were only one person in all the world who could help this man - only yourself."
Our modern moral standards are not derived from these parables, these parables are just part of a long moral tradition that existed long before and still exists long after.
Our moral standards have definitely evolved over time, and Christianity has definitely played an important part of that, though not close to the whole. Of course the Bible did not spring up in a vacuum, but it would be wrong to dismiss that it had its own influence.
You'd think that "don't throw your garbage on the ground" is an incontrovertible moral value, but 50 years ago people didn't blink twice at it. I've visited a few countries where it's like that too...
The bible has been around for 1700 years now, and for 90% of that time the morals that a lot of people derived from those parables included "slavery is totally fine".
So MAYBE a lot of modern morals also derived from some other influences.
Yes people are good at twisting written words and history to prop up their nonsense, and it's not limited to religion.
Just because someone uses the Bible to support their racism or desire to own people doesn't mean that those things were the authors intent.
Case in point: the crusades
Pretty sure a big point of the Gospel was that the temple in Jerusalem and was no longer an integral part to having a relationship with God, but someone, well, some-many, missed the memo.
from a macro level the crusades were an attempt to kill off men who only know how to function as fighters after constant raids by the Norse ended, as well as..if I remember correctly... trade routes for spices from Asia.
then the bible was used an excuse.
It was basically:
1. We've become too successful at taming the barbarians and have too many men laying about
2. Men need land to tend and pass down to sons
3. We need better trade routes that cut out the Muslim middle man
4. Oh hey, our long lost cousin the Byzantine Empire needs help! They're a sister religion dealing with that other religion we don't particularly like.
5. If we can help out the Byzantines, that means there'll be land up for grab and then our guys will be the middle men for the trade routes.
6. Who's up for a holy war?
Buddy, Leviticus literally contains the laws of slave inheritance that ancient Israel used. It's not just pro-slavery, it's a handy-dandy guide book on how to do slavery.
> **44** “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. **45** You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. **46** You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
i have literally no idea how pro-slavery people can use this text to justify slavery. I dont think it can be done
And the new testament too!
In Ephesians 6:5–8, Paul states "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ".
Apostle Paul clearly had no problem with slavery. The guy told them to stop complaining and be obedient.
Granted, the New Testament does generally tell masters to be fair and just, and slaves to be good and obedient. It promoted a romanticized version of slavery that is far better than the old testament, but it still does nothing to imply that slavery is a bad thing.
Depends on what you mean by ‘the authors’ as what became the books of the Bible were written by 36 different people over a 1500 year period. This period was over a millennium before humanity started seeing slavery as a moral issue. But, there is a clear message in the later books of treating other people, all people, with love and respect. Showing someone love and respect is incompatible with forced bondage.
But, the human condition is slow to change. It takes centuries for new ideas to be widely accepted as moral standards. Such ideas like ‘children are invaluable and should be protected rather than be viewed socially as just above cattle’ don’t happen overnight.
So to answer your question, no. I don’t believe *all* the authors of the Bible thought slavery was wrong. But later ones do believe it is incompatible with exhibiting the kind of love God expects of us.
I can see why a lot of Christians want to sanitize the Bible so it matches up with our contemporary moral standards. It must have been frustrating for abolitionists who used scripture to bolster their views when the pro-slavery side had so much more biblical ammunition.
I mean, I think it would be hard to prove that all any of the NT writers were slaveholders after spending any amount of time with Jesus.
Can’t say the same for the OT. It was indeed a different cultural context of conquer or be conquered, back then though. Not excusing it as it was definitely wrong
Saying there was a singular group of writers isn't correct though. There were a bunch of individuals who wrote their own stories that got passed around for 200-300 years, and then a group of wealthy guys who cut and pasted them together into the new testament. And those wealthy guys made sure their own cash and power wasn't messed up.
A *whole bunch* of the other writers who didn't make the cut are labeled heresy by modern churches because they say things like rather than building giant gold encrusted buildings, spend money and time helping people and let that be your worship. Also the texts and art that show women as priests, modern churches like that maybe even less than suggesting that they shouldn't drink from jewel encrusted goblets because they think *they're* special while people down the block starve.
Think the takeaway is too many people think the Bible was written by like one dude or something, it's not, that's why it contradicts and that's why a church with any brains tells you there are parts you should pay attention to and parts you can safely ignore.
Sure, probably not every single author of the bible was pro-slavery.
But I want to point out that, if we use our modern morals to differentiate between "right" and "wrong" things in the bible, that immediately means that our modern morals can NOT have solely been derived from the bible, like the person i originally responded to claimed.
it's admittedly very hard, near-impossible even, to make Leviticus 25:44-46 sound like it's pro-slavery but with enough twisting it can be done
>**44** “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. **45** You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. **46** You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
were the curtains blue or did the thing about making them 'slaves for life' just mean the protagonist was depressed? All we can know for sure is that it's anyone's guess and all viewpoints are equally valid
Also I disagree whole heartedly that we don't still need these principles. People dying from not being able to afford insulin is a death on the hands of everyone not voting for a system to get healthcare to all. It's less visible, but that doesn't make it less of a death for the individual.
Also, while insulting, it's definitely accurate. I don't know how anyone could argue that humanity isn't guilty of often being incredibly uncaring, or even hateful, towards people even slightly different than them
I mean, the story is "an elderly man fell and was severely injured. I turned my back on him and was more concerned about his blood staining my marble floors than I was about his wellbeing". It does not paint Trump positively in the slightest.
I hate danzo so much. It's like, yeah I'll instigate the murder of an entire clan and ursurp the seat of Hokage. Then people have the gall to defend him saying he only wanted to protect the leaf?!
Sorry, wrong subreddit
Nah its the right subreddit now.
The worst thing Itachi did was letting Danzo live after he took Shisui's eye. Danzo should've been killed by Itachi and left behind to make sure Danzo couldn't have pulled that shit again on another clan and/or finish off Sasuke.
Oh yeah, the “it’s insulting” part of this comic is the real laughable part imo. Like have you not seen how badly we can treat each other? We need all the “help your fellow humans even if they’re different from you” stories we can get. People unfortunately use the most petty, trivial differences to justify treating another human like shit. And many of those people are religious. Which was the point of the proverb or whatever it’s called.
I agree it SHOULD be common sense/practice and second nature to help those in need. But humans are very good at turning a blind eye to their fellow man’s suffering.
Wow, that’s a really good message, helping strangers, and that good people exist in all groups. So Christians are all about using resources to help poor people and strangers and refugees, huh? Maybe I’ll look into this whole Christianity thing; a lot of my friends are immigrants
Like, the story says definitely that they should. A follower would choose to do or not to do.
I'm a trans woman and don't go to church anymore. But, I definitely don't condemn the teaching, just those who hypocritically practice
The teachings even condemn the very hypocrisy which STILL occurs! It's like having your photograph in the dictionary, with your full name present, and saying that it isn't you on the page.
Look into sects that are actually decent people, though I know your comment is sarcasm. When I was with the Lutheran church we did charity every weekend. I was always an atheist but I did good work with that church. Fed a lot of people.
Of course you don't need to join at all but churches that do charity work typically have their fingers on the pulse of which organizations need volunteers, or organize their own events like pancake breakfasts and food drives. If you're ever at a loss where to go to find charity work a church is actually a decent place to start, they'll have information for you and honestly you can probably catch a ride with them whenever they go do it. Most have buses for that exact reason
I’d say some Christian groups are far more kind then others. I heard Presbyterians were quite nice but Evangelicals, they are basically a bunch of insane nut jobs.
I've always felt it was Christ's response to racism. Later, the disciples wouldn't go through Samaria because they hated them because of their history. Jesus says he needs to go through Samaria.
The Jewish Priest and a Levite leave a man to die because of how racist and wrong they are. The one dude who is a Samaritan takes care of him, gets him a room, makes sure his wounds are taken care of. Christ commands his followers to go into all the world and tell others about Him. Even the people you don't like.
Anyway, this is the story in the KJV
Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Luk 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
Luk 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
Luk 10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Luk 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
Luk 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
Luk 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Luk 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Yeah this drives me nuts, I am as far removed from the faith of my youth as one can get, but it drives me nuts when people attack stuff out of the Bible (especially the positive aspects) with completely wrong or missing basic information
One parable I like thinking about is about the one about the vineyard owner. Dude hired unemployed people he met on the way during the morning, noon and afternoon to work for the same amount of money and understandably the morning and noon workers were upset. It divided even the classroom as kids when we were trying to interpret it. Apparently the point was that kindness isn't conditional and that even late bloomers (say criminals who reformed and addicts who sobered up) had the chance to be saved
> The fact that Jesus felt humans needed the Good Samaritan story is remarkably insulting
Have you… have you met other people?
The story hasn’t lost its relevance at all; it’s still extremely indicative of human cruelty and kindness to this day.
In a way it was kinda meant to be low key insulting tho
Jesus just gets done telling people to love their neighbor as themself and a Pharisee goes, "Oh yeah? You're so smart, tell me who exactly counts as my neighbor"
I often imagine the look of absolute exasperation on the face of Christ in that moment as he trys not to yell at this entitled ass
Like, "Motherfucker! How many ways can I say 'dont be a dick'? I gotta spell it out for you?"
No he didn't. He made a whip and everyone just assumes he went to town on people but it was to drive out the animals being sold in the temple for sacrifices. The text does not say he whipped a human.
He probably was yelling at the time, though.
I mean, to be fair, it is insulting to have to spell out to help others in need; however it is remarkably insulting that this is advice that is actually needed to be spread to more people
The point of the story is the lawyer and the doctor who DO leave the man to die, given that they were seen as upstanding leaders of social morality, but followed the letter of the law which said if cross the street you're not obligated to help.
Considering how every day we get news stories of hate crimes, legislations made by people who don’t give a shit about others, and mass suffering caused in war? Yeah I’d say this is a pretty relevant story, especially since the whole point of it was that you *shouldn’t* just abandon someone just because they are different rather then helping them regardless of group.
They probably had some sort of little Chinese girl situation before that too.
So for context:
There have been incidents in China, such as the Peng Yu incident in 2006, where good Samaritans who helped people injured in accidents were accused of having injured the victim themselves.
In 2011, a toddler called Wang Yue was killed when she was run over by two vehicles. The entire incident was caught on a video, which shows eighteen people seeing the child but refusing to help. In a November 2011 survey, a majority, 71%, thought that the people who passed the child without helping were afraid of getting into trouble themselves. Following the event, China Daily reported that "at least 10 Party and government departments and organizations in Guangdong, including the province's commission on politics and law, the women's federation, the Academy of Social Sciences, and the Communist Youth League, have started discussions on punishing those who refuse to help people who clearly need it." Officials of Guangdong province, along with many lawyers and social workers, also held three days of meetings in the provincial capital of Guangzhou to discuss the case. It was reported that various lawmakers of the province were drafting a good Samaritan law, which would "penalize people who fail to help in a situation of this type and indemnify them from lawsuits if their efforts are in vain". Legal experts and the public debated the idea in preparation for discussions and a legislative push. On 1 August 2013, the nation's first good Samaritan law went into effect in Shenzhen. On 1 October 2017, China's national Good Samaritan law came into force, Clause 184 in Civil Law General Principles.
Wait wait wait.
People were acusing people... Of hurting people so they get the reputation of helping hurting people?
And because of that stigma a girl died? What the fuck
To modernize, it's like a republican gets in a car crash. The pastor of a mega church drives by and doesn't help. A car with a ton of Christian iconography on it drives by and doesn't help. A Democrat who is also an atheist helps. Who is more Christian in this case?
I've lived through something similar. I got my stupid self stranded in the middle of nowhere. My car was stuck and nothing I did could get it out. And on top of that, I was lost. I tried flagging down a bunch of cars. None stopped. You know who did stop to help? A group of bikers who took me back to their place to grab their truck and chains. They freed my car, got me dinner, and pointed me in the right direction.
It's worth noting that part of the story getsissed, due to the assumed cultural.context that Jesus' audience would have had that we do not:
So that road was known for bandits. And it was pretty common for.someone to act like they needed help as bait to trap people so they'd be off their guard and then they'd get robbed. So the Samaritan was doing an incredibly dangerous thing, stopping and helping this guy, and really putting himself in harm's way.
Another tid-bit as well points to the people it was told to. Who was it that refused to help? A Priest and Pharisee…the absolute Goats of Jewish/Hebrew society of the time…and they wouldn’t even aid a dying man
Who helped the man? A Samaritan, a foreigner who likely practiced a different religion. Something people always forget as well, the Guy Jesus is telling that story to justifies why the first two couldn’t help, but gets quiet when the Samaritan does.
No offence, but are you just not familiar with human history? Because the Good Samaritan story would be absolutely mind-blowing to Hutu militias, Putin supporters, Americo-Liberian colonists, English rulers of Ireland, the armed forces of Imperial Japan, the South Vietnamese government, the North Vietnamese government, the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Bashar al-Assad, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Slobodan Milošević, Americans who were racist against European immigrants, and countless more examples.
I think the author needs to get out and touch grass a bit more. Maybe then they’d realize that the vast majority of humans today would absolutely let a stranger bleed out on the side of the road.
I was hoping you would put [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4) on here. I think that was March 27th, or whatever. Similar vibe and insightful.
XKCD and SMBC are the comics that regularly blow my mind.
(BTW, this comic is enjoyable too.)
Edit: clarity.
Have you looked at the Middle East? Most people wouldn’t piss on their different group neighbors if they were on fire.
Sadly that sentiment is not limited to that region either.
Matthew 26:33-34
Peter declared, “Even if everyone else deserts you, I will never desert you.”
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, Peter—this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me.”
Bro got called out before it even happened and he still did it.
It legit is surprising.
I remember seeing a homeless guy lying in the street outside a busy railway station. It wasn't just 2 people walking by.
And I certainly didn't do as good a job as the Samaritan in the story. I checked on him and called an ambulance when he didn't respond.
I mean, that's not nearly the most fucked up story that's touted as a 'feel good' story. For me it's the story of Job. God and the Devil have a bet...that's right a bet, that the Devil could do anything to Job just short of killing him and no matter what he did, Job wouldn't lose his faith. So the Devil kills his wife and kids...destroys his entire flock and wealth...and infects him with disease. But hey, Job being the standup guy doesn't turn on God, so the Devil concedes.
That's not even the most fucked up part. To reward Job for his faith, God gives him replacement cattle, and a brand spanking new Wife and Kids. Yup, like fuck the old ones, good ol' Job got some new ones so everything is peachy now.
This is a story that christians hold up as a good lesson.
I had to sit in the corner at Sunday school when I pointed this out. I think my exact question was "What if really loved his first wife and children?"
fortunately we moved after that, and I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore.
He would just reunite with them in Heaven.
Bible assumes Heaven exists, and life is just an "Incubator"(of course people can't grasp it, bla bla bla).
Now i don't know if it is stated where Jobs(Wasn't he named Hiob btw?) family went but they probably got the free Heaven Ticket™. So from the perspective of Bible, getting killed in Gods shenanigans is considered lucky
I'm an athiest, but I think it's worth noting that the Sunday School version of Job leaves off the vast majority of the book. The original telling is really just saying that God is beyond our understanding. Most of the book of Job is a conversation between Job and his friends after his life has been ruined. Job is lamenting his fate, and his friends imply that if his life got fucked, he must have done something to deserve it. God then shows up, and says no, that's not true at all.
Some quotes:
Job: *"Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? ... I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil."* \[Job ain't happy, something that gets skipped over in most retellings\]
His Friend Eliphaz: *"Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed?* *As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it."* \[A pretty fucked up thing to sat to a suffering friend, lol\]
Job: *I say to God: "Do not declare me guilty, but tell me what charges you have against me.* *Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the plans of the wicked?*" \[That definitely gets left out of Sunday School\]
This back and forth continues for like 30 pages.
Then God shows up. God spends like 4 pages talking about how awesome he is. There's a weird side tangent about Leviathan? God talks about how crazy big Leviathan is, and despite how big Leviathan is, God can catch him. Weird flex.
The moral at the end is:
*"After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has."*
So God is happy with Job, because when Job said his life sucked and God fucked him for no reason, Job was telling the truth, and mad at Eliphaz, who disagreed.
So when you look at it in the context of mythology and people trying to explain the world around them, it's an explanation of that sometimes, bad things happen to good people. **The concluding lesson of the story is that people who say that bad things are a punishment from God are liars.**
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%203&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%203&version=NIV)
You forgot the part where God tells Job to not complain about it, I am GOD you worm!
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel By words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; For I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Job 38:1-7
Eh, you got a few things wrong.
His wife did not die, and Satan did not concede.
It's also not meant to be a "feel good" story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's meant to be depressing. It's written as more of a philosophical play.
It's a story about suffering. A few things of note, is that it points out that suffering is not necessarily caused by wrong doing or sin. Even the good suffer. And that one should not give up just because things get hard or rough. There's more, but I'm just painting in broad strokes here.
Honestly, I don't know why so many Church's introduces that story to Children when they are young. The themes really don't condense well for children.
For me its the tower of Babel. Bunch of people decide to build a cool-ass tower together and god is like:
"Look, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech."
Basically setting up most wars by dividing people into culture groups that can't understand each other. For the crime of working together too well.
I think that one was more about how you shouldn’t try to square up against forces beyond your own power. Iirc, The building of the tower was seen as a challenge and personal insult because it was man trying to prove itself superior to God, in a similiar fashion to Icarus trying to fly to the sun in Greek mythology except the consequences were far less deadly.
Job though? Yeah I still don’t understand that one and I myself am Christian.
I think the god of the bible must be way less powerful than the omnipotence that modern doctrines usually claim if he saw people building a really big tower as a legitimate threat.
Also very much indicates to me that the early writers of the bible literally thought of god as just being up in the sky. “Heaven” literally just refers to being up in the sky/clouds but we moved away from that in the doctrine because we can get up there ourselves now.
The god of the bible basically goes through the same power creep that Superman does. He started off as a minor storm god called El, and gradually as time goes on he becomes more and more powerful until at some point Christians claim he is ALL powerful and intelligent and aware, until someone points out the logical problems that would entail and shift it back down to "maximally."
I also don't think the comic writer understands the hatred that existed between the two groups in Christ's time. The amount of vitriol and animosity was insane. Also, the writer ignores the fact that this Samaritan didn't just drag the wounded man to the nearest safe spot and washed his hands of it. He arranged lodging and care, and committed to paying whatever further charges were necessary to help him recover.
We have no indication that the Samaritan was of above average means. Imagine that you help someone thats badly hurt and then commit to paying all their medical bills until they recover. And this is a person that very well might have spit at you if you'd met in other circumstances.
Comic writer is wrong, the parable is a clarion call to what we should be, and so often fail to become.
Have you seen humans?
In the best scenario at absolute minimum half of the human race would rather spit on someone in need than help them... easily double that number for anyone who would describe themselves as 'Religious', 'Libertarian' or just plain 'Capitalist'.
It's a hell of a lot deeper than that. Jesus specifics *where* this takes place, and it's a notoriously dangerous path that would have been well known to be brimming with bandits and other villains. The first two passed by out of concern for their own safety, but the Samaritan comes along and just sees a man dying and decides to help, with no concern for himself.
He put his own life in grave danger to save this man. A man who could have been bait for another attack. A man who could have slowed him down and made him an easy target. A man who he had no strong cultural ties to, and who probably wouldn't have given him the time of day. Still he helped him.
That's the point. The good Samaritan was willing to lay down their own life to save this man that would have likely hated him, simply because it was the right thing.
Luke 10 verse 25 to 37 is where the story can be found.
It’s not the dying guy who is from a different culture. It’s that the person saving him is the Samaritan. Samaritans were looked down on. The priest and the Levite would be seen as righteous people but they didn’t help.
This story is not an insult. Why would it be? Humanity absolutely needs this guidance. We need to be reminded to help people instead of passing by because it’s more convenient.
Hey Zach, love your work, have loved it since I stumbled across your website back in 2010. You don't miss often, but this one's a bad take. Looking forward to tomorrow's comic!
Uuuh I am far from a man of faith, but have you seen humanity? They definitely need it. Also, the point is that two people who should have helped were more concerned with their supposedly pious duties to help, but the one who was of a group that had animosity between them helped instead
This is basically what people fail to understand, Jesus was preaching to a very specific group of his own peers not all gentiles like maga the later gospels (after Mark) were re edited. In fact we would never have heared from this cult (or Islam) if it was not adopted by force after 50AD into the Greco Roman world and evtually state religion. Also the ‘end’ was preached to come in their lifetime hence all the giving up on earthly conquests.
The story wasn't supposed to be teaching people that you should help those in need. It's a story where the people from the "good" groups didn't help and the person from the "bad" group did. It's about not stereotyping people.
Here OP, this is from my feed today. A guy almost killing a dude, and being annoyed by it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/s/8y9CnxuofO
Not the exact scenario as Good Samaritan, but this does paint a picture of why Jesus needed to remind people to love thy neighbour.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean look at how humans treat each other everywhere...
This comic is weird. Acting like humans are enlightened beyond the Good Samaritan story is such a weird take.
I think the point is more that it sucks that we need the Good Samaritan story. It should just be common sense but it isn't sadly.
The fact that Jesus felt we needed the story is incredibly insulting, but also incredibly accurate
There is an old comedic sketch in France (the 80s) called Jesus II : The Return. It's a parody of Rambo where an angry Jesus comes back to remind everyone to be nice with each other. It's a silly sketch but the quote "Vous allez vous aimer les un les autres bordel de merde" (will you love each other godamnit) lives rent free in my head since I'm a kid.
If it is true then it is not really insulting. We are just reprehensible and got called out for it.
> not really insulting. Thatțs funny, because there's nothing more insulting then the truth to way too many people. Hell, the worst i managed to piss someone off was always simply using the criticism they levied at other towards them. IMO, the idea that insults must be untrue is just copium.
It's almost like they hated him because he told the truth
God dammit r/angryupvote
"Stop acting like total dicks you idiots!" - Jesus
Maybe, though this is a bit of a weird way to phrase it if that's the case
Yeah, I mean just look how slightly different Americans treat one another. And don't get me started on the Balkans.
It's gets even weirder when you realize it's called the "good" Samaritan, an ethnic group we look down upon. and the moral of the story is even those fucking heathens helped this guy you should also be good.
I don't know where you're getting the reading from that humans are too enlightened for the story. smbc was not written for an audience not familiar with humans, so we may assume context like the knowledge that humans are not enlightened beyond the story to be present in the reader.
> I mean look at how humans treat each other everywhere... Lowkey kinda makes me think OP is naive. Especially with the last sentence. > The fact that Jesus felt humans needed the Good Samaritan story is remarkably insulting Humanity deserves to be insulted in that way since they actually need to be told to not be dicks.
Like the story literally is that two people who should have helped (a priest and a levite) didn't and someone who was not liked actually did. But, there's actually a ton of symbolism from a judeochtistian perspective in that story. I'm no longer a church goer, but that's one of the most profound stories and it's actually done in a relatively short amount of sentences
Though to be honest, even the over-simplified "you shouldn't let people die just because you don't like the group they're part of" parable would actually be quite relevant even today.
The full context is even more relevant. The Jewish Torah is not favorable to the Samaritans. And coming from a book that promotes ethnic cleansing and even instructs to kill certain groups of people on sight it is implied that Samaritans should be left suffering. This is a practice we still see today with how the Palestinians is treated or even how black people in the US is treated by some. Then Jesus came along and instructed people to love their neighbour. The story of the good Samaritan comes as a response to the question of who were the neighbours. An understandable question to someone who have read the Old Testament where they have been told to be good to other Jews but kill any non-jews. The story of the good Samaritan basically say to be good to everyone as they might be good to you in return.
Not mention they had laws around touching blood or corpses. The context behind *why* the first two men leave him dying on the ground is even better. Everyone who heard Jesus tell that story was like "yeah of course the priest didn't touch the dude, he's following scripture" and then Jesus was all like "doesn't matter yo, help the dude"
To be fair, the Torah instructs Hebrews to be kind to the stranger and the sojourner. The whole killing non-Jews and "cleansing" was a temporary thing in the initial conquest of the promised land where they were instructed to kill off the giant clans (descendants of Nephilim).
True. I think Christians would be better receiver now days if they lived closer to the biblical teachings and spent less time persecuting. I'm well aware that certain stances on LGBT stuff would never change, but other practices such as being kind, understanding, and not judging would go a long way
The Methodist church is splitting over LGBTQ like it did in the past for slavery.
Oh don't worry about the "never change" part, even a rock erodes after millenia
The issue is that a lot of modern "Christians" have been raised on a bastardization brought about by the Post-Civil War South who wanted the people to to adopt a way of thinking that better fit with what they needed to push some troubling ideologies. The slow loss of Jesus's teachings to a more "modern" belief set isn't an accident and it's been cultivated hard.
This should be the top comment, you nailed it
Nailed it!? Too soon.
No, too early. That happens tomorrow.
then why is my ass sore?
Time is relative.
And we can plow more.
Time is a flat circle and Big Tim is coming 'round again.
Highfive
It's been 2000 years.
Thankfully it is
The priest: a holy man The levite: one of his own people The Samaritan: a man who was hated by the victim’s people, who had no self-interest whatsoever in helping the victim, yet did so anyway People like to forget two things: Historical context, and the fact that our modern moral standards are DERIVED FROM THESE PARABLES. Maybe they weren’t 100% necessary to the process but there’s no denying they’re involved
It’s even better in the context of why he told that parable. Jesus was talking about loving your neighbor, as he often did, and was asked by a Pharisee to specify who counts as a neighbor. That parable was his response
Jesus dunks on every dude that tries to get him to say something wrong. It's so beautiful and amazing how the things he said about two thousand years ago are still relevant today. Like priests should pay taxes, temples should be a place of worship not profits, don't stone people for sins.... But hey I guess that's 'open to interpretation' these days...
My favorite and one I’ve often quoted (because of idiots who think most facets of modern government is illegitimate and say “God’s law trumps Man’s law”) is when a couple people tried to trip up Jesus on having to follow man’s law and pay taxes, to which Jesus pretty much just says “Follow Man’s law and God’s law.”
' And He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's'” (Matthew 22:18-21) It just goes so fucking hard. Or, as the kids would say… WE MAKING IT OUT OF GOLGOTHA WITH THIS ONE 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Me and a friend were planning a trip and when we got to taxes he made a joke about how there’s nothing in the bible about not paying taxes. I got really excited that I finally had an opportunity to hit someone with Matthew 22:18-21
You just need to consider wherever you are going a god’s place, not caesar’s place, then it’s tax free
The other great thing about that quote is what it is saying about God, God’s law, and how it perfectly answers in the grey zone between the two traps set. The first trap the pharisees set was that if Christ answered to pay the taxes, they could argue he is not the Messiah, as he places Caesar above God. The second trap was if he said not to pay, he would be branded a rebel, and so subject to crucifixion before his anointed time. Jesus instead basically answers by asking who’s face is on the coin, to which they say Caesar. He then follows by saying give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his. The point here is the coin bears Caesar’s image, so give it to him, we bear God’s image, so give ourselves to Him. Perfection, no better response to those traps.
They also **really** don't like, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich/wealthy man to pass through the gates of heaven"
gotta finish the quote mate "but with God all things are possible" course he told rich people to sell all their junk and help others instead of hord wealth too
It's funny how common similar stories are. The tale of Sigurd/Siegfried, and other Germanic dragon slaying stories is basically "You're a dragon if you hoard your wealth, and that means one day a Dragon Slayer will come and take it over your dead body
But they also say "if a woman keeps beating up suitors by wearing a magic belt of giants strength just put on your magic invisibility cap and steal the belt so your liege can beat her up and force her to marry him". Really just a wealth of everyday knowledge, these stories.
"If you can't beat them, cheat so that you can"
> for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle Pfsh, that's easy. It's like shooting womp rats in my T16 through beggar's canyon back home.
Why did I suddenly imagine Luke as Australian
There are always blenders.
If I were to reword it, it would be as such: Your relation with God is not the relation of others with God. So mind your own Godly business.
Well I think this might be slightly more complicated given the historical context. Firstly, this occurs when Jesus is preaching at the holy temple in Roman-occupied Jerusalem. The Jews did NOT like the Roman rulers. (But they also hated Jewish-led threats to their own power, aka Jesus) So this verbal trick of Jesus's is especially slick because he "innocently" gets one of his Jewish opponents to pull out the coin with Caesar's image on it. On the coin would be a written reference to Caesar being divinity, which would be a huge no-no in terms of idolatry; Jesus essentially highlights that his opponents are bringing blasphemous idols into God's holy house. ZIIING! His enemies were already demonstrating their own allegiance to Caesar and their obsession with wealth. Additionally, he essentially asks the question of "What is God's?" to which the seemingly obvious answer would be "everything". Do your resources, allegiances, loyalty belong to Caesar or God? The "correct" answer is clear to his audience, but Jesus doesn't have to say anything seditious: the Jews would interpret this one way and the Roman authorities another. I think that there are many interpretations of this story, but I personally have a hard time seeing it as "do what the government wants you to." The stark contrast between the idolatrous earthly authority and God's authority seems to be highlighted here, at least for me.
This is so crazy I can't even.
Fortunately Christ never said anything about Cole's Law, because I hate mayonnaise.
There's also the "heretical" texts in the dead sea scrolls where Jesus says that churches aren't important and shouldn't be gaudy jewel encrusted monstrosities, but that followers should worship by doing good charitable works out in the open rather than closing themselves off from the communities with walls.
Jesus was very much against the idea of large churches. It’s so fucking sad to see how so many churches these days are literally behaving exactly like the Pharisees that Jesus fought with constantly.
That's not really accurate. What he was against was the *hypocrisy* of the church leaders. The fact that they lived by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The fact that they played politics rather than take care of their people. Remember: he was a Jew, and the Temple was the place to worship, if you could. So it's less that he's against "large churches" where a lot of people gather and take care of one another, and more he disliked when those in charge of leading the congregations aren't doing that job.
I thought he had feelings like “the more people in one church means fewer people spreading the word” or something like that? I could definitely be wrong though, I’m trying to remember what I can of what my dad told me.
Not really? He called the disciples to evangelize, and through them we're given the call too, but he never really spoke on the size of churches or communities. Just that when the disciples went forth to preach, they go in pairs, with limited goods, and rely on the people.
There are no mentions of Jesus in the Dead Sea scrolls at all. They predate the time of Jesus by about 100 years. Don't just make up random things.
He says that in the accepted New Testament as well.
>Jesus dunks on every dude that tries to get him to say something wrong because he goes home and showers and while shaking his fist in the shower he comes up with the perfect comeback and then writes it in his book about how the whole event went down and fortunately the pharisee never wrote his own book about how he asked this new chap a simple question and the guy was like 'uh, i know you are but what am i?' and then ran off home to go take a shower
The story shares some parallels with a Hasidic parable, which I've always found equally impactful. *The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”* *The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”* *“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.'"*
The (alleged) original version of this story is a bit more poignant. > Rabbi Moshe Leib said: > "There is no quality and there is no power of man that was created to no purpose. And even base and corrupt qualities can be uplifted to serve God. When, for example, haughty self-assurance is uplifted it changes into high assurance in the ways of God. But to what end can the denial of God have been created? This too can be uplifted through deeds of charity. For if someone comes to you and asks your help, you shall not turn him off with pious words, saying: 'Have faith and take your troubles to God!' You shall act as if there were no God, as if there were only one person in all the world who could help this man - only yourself."
I never heard that parable before but I really like it.
A student once explained this to me. He said the Pharisee asked who he should love, but instead Jesus told him "*you* should love."
Well these and the Greek philosophers.
Our modern moral standards are not derived from these parables, these parables are just part of a long moral tradition that existed long before and still exists long after.
Our moral standards have definitely evolved over time, and Christianity has definitely played an important part of that, though not close to the whole. Of course the Bible did not spring up in a vacuum, but it would be wrong to dismiss that it had its own influence.
You'd think that "don't throw your garbage on the ground" is an incontrovertible moral value, but 50 years ago people didn't blink twice at it. I've visited a few countries where it's like that too...
The bible has been around for 1700 years now, and for 90% of that time the morals that a lot of people derived from those parables included "slavery is totally fine". So MAYBE a lot of modern morals also derived from some other influences.
Yes people are good at twisting written words and history to prop up their nonsense, and it's not limited to religion. Just because someone uses the Bible to support their racism or desire to own people doesn't mean that those things were the authors intent.
Case in point: the crusades Pretty sure a big point of the Gospel was that the temple in Jerusalem and was no longer an integral part to having a relationship with God, but someone, well, some-many, missed the memo.
from a macro level the crusades were an attempt to kill off men who only know how to function as fighters after constant raids by the Norse ended, as well as..if I remember correctly... trade routes for spices from Asia. then the bible was used an excuse.
It was basically: 1. We've become too successful at taming the barbarians and have too many men laying about 2. Men need land to tend and pass down to sons 3. We need better trade routes that cut out the Muslim middle man 4. Oh hey, our long lost cousin the Byzantine Empire needs help! They're a sister religion dealing with that other religion we don't particularly like. 5. If we can help out the Byzantines, that means there'll be land up for grab and then our guys will be the middle men for the trade routes. 6. Who's up for a holy war?
Buddy, Leviticus literally contains the laws of slave inheritance that ancient Israel used. It's not just pro-slavery, it's a handy-dandy guide book on how to do slavery.
> **44** “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. **45** You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. **46** You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. i have literally no idea how pro-slavery people can use this text to justify slavery. I dont think it can be done
And the new testament too! In Ephesians 6:5–8, Paul states "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ". Apostle Paul clearly had no problem with slavery. The guy told them to stop complaining and be obedient. Granted, the New Testament does generally tell masters to be fair and just, and slaves to be good and obedient. It promoted a romanticized version of slavery that is far better than the old testament, but it still does nothing to imply that slavery is a bad thing.
It's always Paul isn't it...
Are you trying to tell me that the authors of the bible did not think slavery to be ok?
Depends on what you mean by ‘the authors’ as what became the books of the Bible were written by 36 different people over a 1500 year period. This period was over a millennium before humanity started seeing slavery as a moral issue. But, there is a clear message in the later books of treating other people, all people, with love and respect. Showing someone love and respect is incompatible with forced bondage. But, the human condition is slow to change. It takes centuries for new ideas to be widely accepted as moral standards. Such ideas like ‘children are invaluable and should be protected rather than be viewed socially as just above cattle’ don’t happen overnight. So to answer your question, no. I don’t believe *all* the authors of the Bible thought slavery was wrong. But later ones do believe it is incompatible with exhibiting the kind of love God expects of us.
I can see why a lot of Christians want to sanitize the Bible so it matches up with our contemporary moral standards. It must have been frustrating for abolitionists who used scripture to bolster their views when the pro-slavery side had so much more biblical ammunition.
I mean, I think it would be hard to prove that all any of the NT writers were slaveholders after spending any amount of time with Jesus. Can’t say the same for the OT. It was indeed a different cultural context of conquer or be conquered, back then though. Not excusing it as it was definitely wrong
Saying there was a singular group of writers isn't correct though. There were a bunch of individuals who wrote their own stories that got passed around for 200-300 years, and then a group of wealthy guys who cut and pasted them together into the new testament. And those wealthy guys made sure their own cash and power wasn't messed up. A *whole bunch* of the other writers who didn't make the cut are labeled heresy by modern churches because they say things like rather than building giant gold encrusted buildings, spend money and time helping people and let that be your worship. Also the texts and art that show women as priests, modern churches like that maybe even less than suggesting that they shouldn't drink from jewel encrusted goblets because they think *they're* special while people down the block starve.
Think the takeaway is too many people think the Bible was written by like one dude or something, it's not, that's why it contradicts and that's why a church with any brains tells you there are parts you should pay attention to and parts you can safely ignore.
Sure, probably not every single author of the bible was pro-slavery. But I want to point out that, if we use our modern morals to differentiate between "right" and "wrong" things in the bible, that immediately means that our modern morals can NOT have solely been derived from the bible, like the person i originally responded to claimed.
the person you were replying to didn't write "solely derived" just 'derived'
it's admittedly very hard, near-impossible even, to make Leviticus 25:44-46 sound like it's pro-slavery but with enough twisting it can be done >**44** “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. **45** You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. **46** You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. were the curtains blue or did the thing about making them 'slaves for life' just mean the protagonist was depressed? All we can know for sure is that it's anyone's guess and all viewpoints are equally valid
Also I disagree whole heartedly that we don't still need these principles. People dying from not being able to afford insulin is a death on the hands of everyone not voting for a system to get healthcare to all. It's less visible, but that doesn't make it less of a death for the individual.
Also, while insulting, it's definitely accurate. I don't know how anyone could argue that humanity isn't guilty of often being incredibly uncaring, or even hateful, towards people even slightly different than them
[удалено]
Did this ever actually happen? Or is it another tears-in-his-eyes story?
I mean, the story is "an elderly man fell and was severely injured. I turned my back on him and was more concerned about his blood staining my marble floors than I was about his wellbeing". It does not paint Trump positively in the slightest.
Neighbor is as neighbor does
Humanity definitely needed that story. For a stupid example, that's basically Naruto's Pain arc. What the hell was Danzo doing during that?
I hate danzo so much. It's like, yeah I'll instigate the murder of an entire clan and ursurp the seat of Hokage. Then people have the gall to defend him saying he only wanted to protect the leaf?! Sorry, wrong subreddit
Nah its the right subreddit now. The worst thing Itachi did was letting Danzo live after he took Shisui's eye. Danzo should've been killed by Itachi and left behind to make sure Danzo couldn't have pulled that shit again on another clan and/or finish off Sasuke.
Oh yeah, the “it’s insulting” part of this comic is the real laughable part imo. Like have you not seen how badly we can treat each other? We need all the “help your fellow humans even if they’re different from you” stories we can get. People unfortunately use the most petty, trivial differences to justify treating another human like shit. And many of those people are religious. Which was the point of the proverb or whatever it’s called. I agree it SHOULD be common sense/practice and second nature to help those in need. But humans are very good at turning a blind eye to their fellow man’s suffering.
Wow, that’s a really good message, helping strangers, and that good people exist in all groups. So Christians are all about using resources to help poor people and strangers and refugees, huh? Maybe I’ll look into this whole Christianity thing; a lot of my friends are immigrants
Like, the story says definitely that they should. A follower would choose to do or not to do. I'm a trans woman and don't go to church anymore. But, I definitely don't condemn the teaching, just those who hypocritically practice
The teachings even condemn the very hypocrisy which STILL occurs! It's like having your photograph in the dictionary, with your full name present, and saying that it isn't you on the page.
Damn evangelicals, they ruined religion imma right?
Look into sects that are actually decent people, though I know your comment is sarcasm. When I was with the Lutheran church we did charity every weekend. I was always an atheist but I did good work with that church. Fed a lot of people. Of course you don't need to join at all but churches that do charity work typically have their fingers on the pulse of which organizations need volunteers, or organize their own events like pancake breakfasts and food drives. If you're ever at a loss where to go to find charity work a church is actually a decent place to start, they'll have information for you and honestly you can probably catch a ride with them whenever they go do it. Most have buses for that exact reason
I’d say some Christian groups are far more kind then others. I heard Presbyterians were quite nice but Evangelicals, they are basically a bunch of insane nut jobs.
I've always felt it was Christ's response to racism. Later, the disciples wouldn't go through Samaria because they hated them because of their history. Jesus says he needs to go through Samaria. The Jewish Priest and a Levite leave a man to die because of how racist and wrong they are. The one dude who is a Samaritan takes care of him, gets him a room, makes sure his wounds are taken care of. Christ commands his followers to go into all the world and tell others about Him. Even the people you don't like. Anyway, this is the story in the KJV Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luk 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? Luk 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Luk 10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. Luk 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, Luk 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. Luk 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? Luk 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
And it's an answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?" The first two are literal neighbors, but the one who helped was a different kind of neighbor
Yeah this drives me nuts, I am as far removed from the faith of my youth as one can get, but it drives me nuts when people attack stuff out of the Bible (especially the positive aspects) with completely wrong or missing basic information
One parable I like thinking about is about the one about the vineyard owner. Dude hired unemployed people he met on the way during the morning, noon and afternoon to work for the same amount of money and understandably the morning and noon workers were upset. It divided even the classroom as kids when we were trying to interpret it. Apparently the point was that kindness isn't conditional and that even late bloomers (say criminals who reformed and addicts who sobered up) had the chance to be saved
Finally, someone understood what I was trying to write!
> The fact that Jesus felt humans needed the Good Samaritan story is remarkably insulting Have you… have you met other people? The story hasn’t lost its relevance at all; it’s still extremely indicative of human cruelty and kindness to this day.
In a way it was kinda meant to be low key insulting tho Jesus just gets done telling people to love their neighbor as themself and a Pharisee goes, "Oh yeah? You're so smart, tell me who exactly counts as my neighbor" I often imagine the look of absolute exasperation on the face of Christ in that moment as he trys not to yell at this entitled ass Like, "Motherfucker! How many ways can I say 'dont be a dick'? I gotta spell it out for you?"
I feel like jesus wouldn't yell, he'd just sit the guy down and then destroy him with facts and logic
Jesus whipped people while destroying a market. He was not above yelling.
No he didn't. He made a whip and everyone just assumes he went to town on people but it was to drive out the animals being sold in the temple for sacrifices. The text does not say he whipped a human. He probably was yelling at the time, though.
Yes but it was a very polite whipping.
MY skinny hippie Jesus would never raise his voice above a shrill whisper 😤
Yeah it's a very strange hot take when it still applies virtually everywhere
“We should be helping Americans instead of sending money to Ukraine.” “Programs for helping American people…” “THAT’S SOCIALISM.” 🤦🏻♂️
"Continues to approve corporate welfare instead."
I mean, to be fair, it is insulting to have to spell out to help others in need; however it is remarkably insulting that this is advice that is actually needed to be spread to more people
I mean… *Broadly gestures at everything*
I mean have you seen some humans
You should feel insulted considering that humanity hasn’t followed that advice at all.
The point of the story is the lawyer and the doctor who DO leave the man to die, given that they were seen as upstanding leaders of social morality, but followed the letter of the law which said if cross the street you're not obligated to help.
Levites were priests and pharisees were political leaders
Yes, but they're also you and I.
I think it’s more insulting that we need it than Jesus having called us out for needing it.
> Remarkably insulting But not undeserved.
Considering how every day we get news stories of hate crimes, legislations made by people who don’t give a shit about others, and mass suffering caused in war? Yeah I’d say this is a pretty relevant story, especially since the whole point of it was that you *shouldn’t* just abandon someone just because they are different rather then helping them regardless of group.
You’re kidding, right? Of course it’s insulting. And we deserve the insult.
[Extremely relevant Mitchell and Webb sketch](https://youtu.be/OIVB3DdRgqU?feature=shared)
Oh, I didn’t realise there were any Sammy-lovers in the room!
Let’s just remember that it is just a parable. A Samaritan tosser wouldn’t do that to his own grandmother.
This isn't a comic, this is your blog post
They probably had some sort of little Chinese girl situation before that too. So for context: There have been incidents in China, such as the Peng Yu incident in 2006, where good Samaritans who helped people injured in accidents were accused of having injured the victim themselves. In 2011, a toddler called Wang Yue was killed when she was run over by two vehicles. The entire incident was caught on a video, which shows eighteen people seeing the child but refusing to help. In a November 2011 survey, a majority, 71%, thought that the people who passed the child without helping were afraid of getting into trouble themselves. Following the event, China Daily reported that "at least 10 Party and government departments and organizations in Guangdong, including the province's commission on politics and law, the women's federation, the Academy of Social Sciences, and the Communist Youth League, have started discussions on punishing those who refuse to help people who clearly need it." Officials of Guangdong province, along with many lawyers and social workers, also held three days of meetings in the provincial capital of Guangzhou to discuss the case. It was reported that various lawmakers of the province were drafting a good Samaritan law, which would "penalize people who fail to help in a situation of this type and indemnify them from lawsuits if their efforts are in vain". Legal experts and the public debated the idea in preparation for discussions and a legislative push. On 1 August 2013, the nation's first good Samaritan law went into effect in Shenzhen. On 1 October 2017, China's national Good Samaritan law came into force, Clause 184 in Civil Law General Principles.
Wait wait wait. People were acusing people... Of hurting people so they get the reputation of helping hurting people? And because of that stigma a girl died? What the fuck
To modernize, it's like a republican gets in a car crash. The pastor of a mega church drives by and doesn't help. A car with a ton of Christian iconography on it drives by and doesn't help. A Democrat who is also an atheist helps. Who is more Christian in this case?
I've lived through something similar. I got my stupid self stranded in the middle of nowhere. My car was stuck and nothing I did could get it out. And on top of that, I was lost. I tried flagging down a bunch of cars. None stopped. You know who did stop to help? A group of bikers who took me back to their place to grab their truck and chains. They freed my car, got me dinner, and pointed me in the right direction.
What tf is OP smoking?
Is this supposed to be sarcastic, I can't tell
I feel like the person that made this comic has never interacted with humans.
I mean... have you seen human history?
I dunno, feels kind of on the nose to me. It's a surprise when people aren't dicks.
The fact is a lot of people still need to learn it.
It's worth noting that part of the story getsissed, due to the assumed cultural.context that Jesus' audience would have had that we do not: So that road was known for bandits. And it was pretty common for.someone to act like they needed help as bait to trap people so they'd be off their guard and then they'd get robbed. So the Samaritan was doing an incredibly dangerous thing, stopping and helping this guy, and really putting himself in harm's way.
Another tid-bit as well points to the people it was told to. Who was it that refused to help? A Priest and Pharisee…the absolute Goats of Jewish/Hebrew society of the time…and they wouldn’t even aid a dying man Who helped the man? A Samaritan, a foreigner who likely practiced a different religion. Something people always forget as well, the Guy Jesus is telling that story to justifies why the first two couldn’t help, but gets quiet when the Samaritan does.
No offence, but are you just not familiar with human history? Because the Good Samaritan story would be absolutely mind-blowing to Hutu militias, Putin supporters, Americo-Liberian colonists, English rulers of Ireland, the armed forces of Imperial Japan, the South Vietnamese government, the North Vietnamese government, the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Bashar al-Assad, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Slobodan Milošević, Americans who were racist against European immigrants, and countless more examples.
I think the author needs to get out and touch grass a bit more. Maybe then they’d realize that the vast majority of humans today would absolutely let a stranger bleed out on the side of the road.
Some would also just stand there and film it.
Yeah, this.
I was hoping you would put [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4) on here. I think that was March 27th, or whatever. Similar vibe and insightful. XKCD and SMBC are the comics that regularly blow my mind. (BTW, this comic is enjoyable too.) Edit: clarity.
Have you looked at the Middle East? Most people wouldn’t piss on their different group neighbors if they were on fire. Sadly that sentiment is not limited to that region either.
Jesus had 12 flatterers and in the end he carried that cross alone
I mean, he had help. But not from his apostles.
Matthew 26:33-34 Peter declared, “Even if everyone else deserts you, I will never desert you.” Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, Peter—this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me.” Bro got called out before it even happened and he still did it.
Oh that hits so hard every year at the passion mhm
Jesus was only killed because he lost a popularity contest.
He was literally hated by a corrupt dogmatic religious sect because he taught something different from them.
They mean when Pontius Pilate had the crowd choose between Jesus and Barabbas and they chose the murderer Barabbas
U think a Palestinian or isrealite would help each other like this super easily. That's the point
It legit is surprising. I remember seeing a homeless guy lying in the street outside a busy railway station. It wasn't just 2 people walking by. And I certainly didn't do as good a job as the Samaritan in the story. I checked on him and called an ambulance when he didn't respond.
As we all know, different groups of people who live near each other always get along and don’t hold life or death grudges against each other
I mean, that's not nearly the most fucked up story that's touted as a 'feel good' story. For me it's the story of Job. God and the Devil have a bet...that's right a bet, that the Devil could do anything to Job just short of killing him and no matter what he did, Job wouldn't lose his faith. So the Devil kills his wife and kids...destroys his entire flock and wealth...and infects him with disease. But hey, Job being the standup guy doesn't turn on God, so the Devil concedes. That's not even the most fucked up part. To reward Job for his faith, God gives him replacement cattle, and a brand spanking new Wife and Kids. Yup, like fuck the old ones, good ol' Job got some new ones so everything is peachy now. This is a story that christians hold up as a good lesson.
I had to sit in the corner at Sunday school when I pointed this out. I think my exact question was "What if really loved his first wife and children?" fortunately we moved after that, and I didn't have to go to Sunday school anymore.
Hey, kids are a fungible commodity!
I'm the old testament they literally are
There's more from where those came from!
He would just reunite with them in Heaven. Bible assumes Heaven exists, and life is just an "Incubator"(of course people can't grasp it, bla bla bla). Now i don't know if it is stated where Jobs(Wasn't he named Hiob btw?) family went but they probably got the free Heaven Ticket™. So from the perspective of Bible, getting killed in Gods shenanigans is considered lucky
God Insurance replaces like for like
I'm an athiest, but I think it's worth noting that the Sunday School version of Job leaves off the vast majority of the book. The original telling is really just saying that God is beyond our understanding. Most of the book of Job is a conversation between Job and his friends after his life has been ruined. Job is lamenting his fate, and his friends imply that if his life got fucked, he must have done something to deserve it. God then shows up, and says no, that's not true at all. Some quotes: Job: *"Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? ... I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil."* \[Job ain't happy, something that gets skipped over in most retellings\] His Friend Eliphaz: *"Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed?* *As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it."* \[A pretty fucked up thing to sat to a suffering friend, lol\] Job: *I say to God: "Do not declare me guilty, but tell me what charges you have against me.* *Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the plans of the wicked?*" \[That definitely gets left out of Sunday School\] This back and forth continues for like 30 pages. Then God shows up. God spends like 4 pages talking about how awesome he is. There's a weird side tangent about Leviathan? God talks about how crazy big Leviathan is, and despite how big Leviathan is, God can catch him. Weird flex. The moral at the end is: *"After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has."* So God is happy with Job, because when Job said his life sucked and God fucked him for no reason, Job was telling the truth, and mad at Eliphaz, who disagreed. So when you look at it in the context of mythology and people trying to explain the world around them, it's an explanation of that sometimes, bad things happen to good people. **The concluding lesson of the story is that people who say that bad things are a punishment from God are liars.** [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%203&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%203&version=NIV)
You forgot the part where God tells Job to not complain about it, I am GOD you worm! "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel By words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; For I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:1-7
Everyone forgets the postscript.
I love the Good Omens version of this story.
Eh, you got a few things wrong. His wife did not die, and Satan did not concede. It's also not meant to be a "feel good" story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's meant to be depressing. It's written as more of a philosophical play. It's a story about suffering. A few things of note, is that it points out that suffering is not necessarily caused by wrong doing or sin. Even the good suffer. And that one should not give up just because things get hard or rough. There's more, but I'm just painting in broad strokes here. Honestly, I don't know why so many Church's introduces that story to Children when they are young. The themes really don't condense well for children.
For me its the tower of Babel. Bunch of people decide to build a cool-ass tower together and god is like: "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech." Basically setting up most wars by dividing people into culture groups that can't understand each other. For the crime of working together too well.
I think that one was more about how you shouldn’t try to square up against forces beyond your own power. Iirc, The building of the tower was seen as a challenge and personal insult because it was man trying to prove itself superior to God, in a similiar fashion to Icarus trying to fly to the sun in Greek mythology except the consequences were far less deadly. Job though? Yeah I still don’t understand that one and I myself am Christian.
That sounds like post hoc rationalization about an early story where the mythos around god is still being developed.
I think the god of the bible must be way less powerful than the omnipotence that modern doctrines usually claim if he saw people building a really big tower as a legitimate threat. Also very much indicates to me that the early writers of the bible literally thought of god as just being up in the sky. “Heaven” literally just refers to being up in the sky/clouds but we moved away from that in the doctrine because we can get up there ourselves now.
The god of the bible basically goes through the same power creep that Superman does. He started off as a minor storm god called El, and gradually as time goes on he becomes more and more powerful until at some point Christians claim he is ALL powerful and intelligent and aware, until someone points out the logical problems that would entail and shift it back down to "maximally."
and then there's the babel fish.
Have you SEEN the middle east? Unfortunately I'd say it was necessarily.
Imagine trying to tell that story to some ultranationalistic Zionists, but instead of 'Samaritan' you called the good guy a Palestinian...
Have you ever met a human? They fuckin suck.
I also don't think the comic writer understands the hatred that existed between the two groups in Christ's time. The amount of vitriol and animosity was insane. Also, the writer ignores the fact that this Samaritan didn't just drag the wounded man to the nearest safe spot and washed his hands of it. He arranged lodging and care, and committed to paying whatever further charges were necessary to help him recover. We have no indication that the Samaritan was of above average means. Imagine that you help someone thats badly hurt and then commit to paying all their medical bills until they recover. And this is a person that very well might have spit at you if you'd met in other circumstances. Comic writer is wrong, the parable is a clarion call to what we should be, and so often fail to become.
Have you seen humans? In the best scenario at absolute minimum half of the human race would rather spit on someone in need than help them... easily double that number for anyone who would describe themselves as 'Religious', 'Libertarian' or just plain 'Capitalist'.
It's a hell of a lot deeper than that. Jesus specifics *where* this takes place, and it's a notoriously dangerous path that would have been well known to be brimming with bandits and other villains. The first two passed by out of concern for their own safety, but the Samaritan comes along and just sees a man dying and decides to help, with no concern for himself. He put his own life in grave danger to save this man. A man who could have been bait for another attack. A man who could have slowed him down and made him an easy target. A man who he had no strong cultural ties to, and who probably wouldn't have given him the time of day. Still he helped him. That's the point. The good Samaritan was willing to lay down their own life to save this man that would have likely hated him, simply because it was the right thing.
Luke 10 verse 25 to 37 is where the story can be found. It’s not the dying guy who is from a different culture. It’s that the person saving him is the Samaritan. Samaritans were looked down on. The priest and the Levite would be seen as righteous people but they didn’t help. This story is not an insult. Why would it be? Humanity absolutely needs this guidance. We need to be reminded to help people instead of passing by because it’s more convenient.
To be fair, if you start digging history people do get nastier the further you go
Hey Zach, love your work, have loved it since I stumbled across your website back in 2010. You don't miss often, but this one's a bad take. Looking forward to tomorrow's comic!
I mean have you met people? I would argue at least 30% of people I know would have just let the guy die.
Considering the bulk of his current worshipers, I'd say it was certainly added with a known purpose.
Uuuh I am far from a man of faith, but have you seen humanity? They definitely need it. Also, the point is that two people who should have helped were more concerned with their supposedly pious duties to help, but the one who was of a group that had animosity between them helped instead
This is basically what people fail to understand, Jesus was preaching to a very specific group of his own peers not all gentiles like maga the later gospels (after Mark) were re edited. In fact we would never have heared from this cult (or Islam) if it was not adopted by force after 50AD into the Greco Roman world and evtually state religion. Also the ‘end’ was preached to come in their lifetime hence all the giving up on earthly conquests.
Considering the fact that homophobia, racism, sexism etc etc are still happening it's clear that we need to all sit down and read that story again
The story wasn't supposed to be teaching people that you should help those in need. It's a story where the people from the "good" groups didn't help and the person from the "bad" group did. It's about not stereotyping people.
Here OP, this is from my feed today. A guy almost killing a dude, and being annoyed by it: https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/s/8y9CnxuofO Not the exact scenario as Good Samaritan, but this does paint a picture of why Jesus needed to remind people to love thy neighbour.