I assume it just means Jesus died for your sins, as opposed to his own. Mo, on the other hand, asks people to kill themselves for reasons of his own. Ah, religion.
Nice to see a dig at Christianity for a change. Not that Islam doesn’t deserve a huge kicking, but there was a danger that J&M could be seen as (gack!) Islamophobic.
Anyway, it’s great theory isn’t it, substitionary atonement? Man needs to atone for his nastiness. Therefore, God demonstrated his benevolence by creating the baby Jesus to be tortured to death on our behalf. What a guy!
From my understanding of Christianity,Christ also died to “redeem us from original sin as well”. A Roman Catholic told me this. So it gets even stranger. We’re all sinners from birth.
@Robert Andrews: …..We’re all sinners from birth…..
And we live our lives confessing them, nonetheless hoping that some day we will be definitely redeemed.
Once upon a time, I stopped trying to write a story that made no sense at all. Lack of inspiration, I guess
Matt, it seems to me that since Jesus is supposed to be god, then isn’t it that god had himself whacked?
Come to think of it, in that sense the Holy Spirit, being also Jesus, had a sex with Mary in order that he might be born. Hmm, seems to be incest somewhere in that.
If that particular human sacrifice already paid for of all my sins. Then why am I supposed to spend my own life giving time, money and unquestioning obediance to one religious leader or another?
Author, one of the things I love about your strip is the educational value. I knew the principle of substitutionary atonement. (which, by the way, my spell checker doesn’t recognize, at least not the first word) but I didn’t know that it had a label. I’ve always seen it as the scapegoat principle. Put your sins on this goat and chase it off into the desert and, voila, you are innocent again.
Introduction to this phrase of course sent me off to Google and Wikipedia where I found that the simple/simplistic idea managed to spawn a metric shitload of nonsense disguised as deep reflection, with competing “theories” of what it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement
Of course, for the religious, the word “theory” doesn’t hold the same meaning that it does for people who understand science. For them “theory” does not mean something that can be tested. (Is there any way to test the premise “Jesus died for our sins.”?) For them, theory actually does mean a guess, a vacuous speculation. No wonder they get confused by the theory of evolution.
I think it is even more confusing, because “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” and Jesus was/is the Word. So right from the very start God created life and the concept of sin, spent many thousands of years being furious that his creation had sinned (although, presumably, he already knew that they would) all the while planning to place an extension of himself on earth that he would then contrive to have killed (although, of course, he couldn’t be killed, because he was God) a bit like cutting off his little finger and regrowing it, and then he could be happy and forgive everyone as long as they believe in his divine, little finger.
The whole idea fails concisely
IF a scapegoat has pretend to die in order to forgive us for our sins [sic]
then why are humans still supposedly judged on an individual basis
Also the whole idea of ‘sin’ does not work
if there was really an acitivity that ‘god’ hates then surely the deity would
have ‘created’ things so that humans were not able to even think of that activity
The problem with this strip is that one simple comment sparks a whole range of evil ideas.
Max T Furr’s comments aroused the idea of the Holy Trinity as ‘god by committee’. This caused me to wonder about the proceedings of the committee meeting that decided to get the Virgin Mary pregnant…sort of like a group of offenders planning a pack rape. Given that we seem to have had three males doing the planning, were there suitable guffaws at Mary’s attractions?
It also leaves you wondering whether Jesus took leave from the committee from the moment of conception to do his bit on earth and just sit around in a womb for 9 months, or did he wait until he was bornZ Who did his celestial job (whatever that is) for the next 30 years For the period, was there just the Holy Duopoly running the universe instead of the Holy Trinity.
Should be testable by suitably deranged astronomers: Was there a period 2000 years ago when the universe showed disruption consistent with overwork amongst those running it – more galaxies colliding etc.
There’s enough in those thoughts to start a whole new area of doctrine, unless someone has already done that.
All this talk about the VIRGIN Mary…
Anyone know since when Mary is/was a virgin?
At the Council of Nicea, (AD 325) she was voted to have been; by a small majority.
Over 300 years after the fact, by a bunch of lecherous old men.
My favourite Catholic doctrine is that of “Mental Reservation” the previous chap in the red hat here in Ireland explained that he had not lied just allowed those investigating child abuse to come to a false understanding of his meaning. He was a Jesuit.
a period 2000 years ago when the universe showed disruption
that would be within our own galaxy – so it would be easy for the deranged astronomers [ aka astrologers] to argue that jesus was in charge of unbarred spiral galaxies while the holy ghost was in charge of ellipticals and thus beyond 2000 light years range
moreover as I understand it the Goddess Nuit is in charge of space
as the bible only mentions the creation of sun moon and stars and thus says nothing about galaxies or the fabric of space-time itself
UncoBob, now you started a whole new range of ideas… For instance, governing the universe by a committee of 3 would explain a whole lot of the irrational u-turns God takes in the Bible. It would come down that the Holy Spirit would make one of the other 2 drunk, and change their mind to vote the opposite way (hence his name, I guess, Holy Spirit)…
Re dr John de Wipper – Mary being a virgin since 300 years after the fact:
Darn. There goes my favourite heresy: parthogenesis begets female children only. Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
Re Shaughn:
Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
Judging by the crucifixes _I_ have seen, in that case she had pretty masculine shoulders and VERY tiny breasts…
re
Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
Judging by the crucifixes _I_ have seen, in that case she had pretty masculine shoulders and VERY tiny breasts…
all that modern fantasy images prove is that misogynist bible redactors enforced portrayal of Jesus as male to fit their patriarchal agenda
re
Since Jesus paid for my sins, I’m going to make damned sure I get my money’s worth.
ok this would suggest that sin has monetary value. therefore does it follow that
the amount of human sin covered by the scapegoat sacrifice is finite or infinite
if infinite then -no problem
however if the redemption of ‘sin’ has a finite value then it follows that at some point the cumulative reduction of ‘sin credit’ will ultimately force Jesus or another ‘prophet’ to go through the same ordeal again so as to set the ‘sin deficit ‘ back to zero
1] is the scapegoat sacrifice limited or infinite is infinite then
@Darwin Harmless “Is there any way to test the premise ‘Jesus died for our sins.’?”
Piece o cake.
One experiment would require a pair of identical twins (to have the greatest assurance of controlling for confounding variables).
Both commit the same major “sin.”
One “believes on the Lord,” per biblical instruction; the other does not.
After their respective deaths, have them report back.
If the one who “believed on the Lord” has made it to Heaven, and the one who did not is in the Lake of Fire, the hypothesis has been given some confirmatory evidence.
Easy as pie.
If we can find a set of identical triplets, we could even compare the Roman Catholic theory against one of the major Protestant principles, as well as believing against not.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
May 17, 2007
wow, didn’t know about that theory. christianity never fails to impress.
I assume it just means Jesus died for your sins, as opposed to his own. Mo, on the other hand, asks people to kill themselves for reasons of his own. Ah, religion.
Nice to see a dig at Christianity for a change. Not that Islam doesn’t deserve a huge kicking, but there was a danger that J&M could be seen as (gack!) Islamophobic.
Anyway, it’s great theory isn’t it, substitionary atonement? Man needs to atone for his nastiness. Therefore, God demonstrated his benevolence by creating the baby Jesus to be tortured to death on our behalf. What a guy!
@Steve Sherman:
From my understanding of Christianity,Christ also died to “redeem us from original sin as well”. A Roman Catholic told me this. So it gets even stranger. We’re all sinners from birth.
The jews just slap the sin on a goat or ram, or maybe the crumbs in their pockets.
@Robert Andrews: …..We’re all sinners from birth…..
And we live our lives confessing them, nonetheless hoping that some day we will be definitely redeemed.
Once upon a time, I stopped trying to write a story that made no sense at all. Lack of inspiration, I guess
Matt, it seems to me that since Jesus is supposed to be god, then isn’t it that god had himself whacked?
Come to think of it, in that sense the Holy Spirit, being also Jesus, had a sex with Mary in order that he might be born. Hmm, seems to be incest somewhere in that.
If that particular human sacrifice already paid for of all my sins. Then why am I supposed to spend my own life giving time, money and unquestioning obediance to one religious leader or another?
Author, one of the things I love about your strip is the educational value. I knew the principle of substitutionary atonement. (which, by the way, my spell checker doesn’t recognize, at least not the first word) but I didn’t know that it had a label. I’ve always seen it as the scapegoat principle. Put your sins on this goat and chase it off into the desert and, voila, you are innocent again.
Introduction to this phrase of course sent me off to Google and Wikipedia where I found that the simple/simplistic idea managed to spawn a metric shitload of nonsense disguised as deep reflection, with competing “theories” of what it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement
Of course, for the religious, the word “theory” doesn’t hold the same meaning that it does for people who understand science. For them “theory” does not mean something that can be tested. (Is there any way to test the premise “Jesus died for our sins.”?) For them, theory actually does mean a guess, a vacuous speculation. No wonder they get confused by the theory of evolution.
I think it is even more confusing, because “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” and Jesus was/is the Word. So right from the very start God created life and the concept of sin, spent many thousands of years being furious that his creation had sinned (although, presumably, he already knew that they would) all the while planning to place an extension of himself on earth that he would then contrive to have killed (although, of course, he couldn’t be killed, because he was God) a bit like cutting off his little finger and regrowing it, and then he could be happy and forgive everyone as long as they believe in his divine, little finger.
Max – Your suggestion brings to mind Heinlein’s sci/fi story “All you zombies” – so perhaps Jesus/god is a zombie?
See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_You_Zombies
Also, the short story itself seems to be online here
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Robert-A.-Heinlein-All-You-Zombies.pdf
Substitutional atonement’s a problem
For the primates describe as muslim
For them to atone
Means breaking a bone
Without violence it is not islam
The whole idea fails concisely
IF a scapegoat has pretend to die in order to forgive us for our sins [sic]
then why are humans still supposedly judged on an individual basis
Also the whole idea of ‘sin’ does not work
if there was really an acitivity that ‘god’ hates then surely the deity would
have ‘created’ things so that humans were not able to even think of that activity
@Steve Sherman:
“…..We’re all sinners from birth.”
Sorry, but no.
Life (and sin apparently) begins at erection….
The problem with this strip is that one simple comment sparks a whole range of evil ideas.
Max T Furr’s comments aroused the idea of the Holy Trinity as ‘god by committee’. This caused me to wonder about the proceedings of the committee meeting that decided to get the Virgin Mary pregnant…sort of like a group of offenders planning a pack rape. Given that we seem to have had three males doing the planning, were there suitable guffaws at Mary’s attractions?
It also leaves you wondering whether Jesus took leave from the committee from the moment of conception to do his bit on earth and just sit around in a womb for 9 months, or did he wait until he was bornZ Who did his celestial job (whatever that is) for the next 30 years For the period, was there just the Holy Duopoly running the universe instead of the Holy Trinity.
Should be testable by suitably deranged astronomers: Was there a period 2000 years ago when the universe showed disruption consistent with overwork amongst those running it – more galaxies colliding etc.
There’s enough in those thoughts to start a whole new area of doctrine, unless someone has already done that.
Running the universe Ha Ha Ha. Tel me when to
expect the Spainish… Thank you UncoBob.
Previous to Author’s strip, I had only heard of the “Jesus on a stick” schtick as “vicarious redemption”.
UncoBob
the New Church of Christ sexual deviant perhaps
“the New Church of Christ sexual deviant perhaps”
The Catholic Church might object to someone using their nickname.
All this talk about the VIRGIN Mary…
Anyone know since when Mary is/was a virgin?
At the Council of Nicea, (AD 325) she was voted to have been; by a small majority.
Over 300 years after the fact, by a bunch of lecherous old men.
@wrinkel42
I’m sorry, nobody expects Spanish Inquisition.
My favourite Catholic doctrine is that of “Mental Reservation” the previous chap in the red hat here in Ireland explained that he had not lied just allowed those investigating child abuse to come to a false understanding of his meaning. He was a Jesuit.
a period 2000 years ago when the universe showed disruption
that would be within our own galaxy – so it would be easy for the deranged astronomers [ aka astrologers] to argue that jesus was in charge of unbarred spiral galaxies while the holy ghost was in charge of ellipticals and thus beyond 2000 light years range
moreover as I understand it the Goddess Nuit is in charge of space
as the bible only mentions the creation of sun moon and stars and thus says nothing about galaxies or the fabric of space-time itself
So to be concise – any disruption could be cited as the work of the Lord Satan pbuh
UncoBob, now you started a whole new range of ideas… For instance, governing the universe by a committee of 3 would explain a whole lot of the irrational u-turns God takes in the Bible. It would come down that the Holy Spirit would make one of the other 2 drunk, and change their mind to vote the opposite way (hence his name, I guess, Holy Spirit)…
Re dr John de Wipper – Mary being a virgin since 300 years after the fact:
Darn. There goes my favourite heresy: parthogenesis begets female children only. Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
@Jerry WWW: “Life (and sin apparently) begins at erection….”
For Jesus, I guess that life began (again) at reserection.
@Len:
moan…
@len , Tomas: double moan
Re Shaughn:
Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
Judging by the crucifixes _I_ have seen, in that case she had pretty masculine shoulders and VERY tiny breasts…
Since Jesus payed for my sins, I’m going to make damned sure I get my money’s worth.
re
Thus, Jesus must have been a genetic female, which is why her genitals are always covered up.
Judging by the crucifixes _I_ have seen, in that case she had pretty masculine shoulders and VERY tiny breasts…
all that modern fantasy images prove is that misogynist bible redactors enforced portrayal of Jesus as male to fit their patriarchal agenda
re
Since Jesus paid for my sins, I’m going to make damned sure I get my money’s worth.
ok this would suggest that sin has monetary value. therefore does it follow that
the amount of human sin covered by the scapegoat sacrifice is finite or infinite
if infinite then -no problem
however if the redemption of ‘sin’ has a finite value then it follows that at some point the cumulative reduction of ‘sin credit’ will ultimately force Jesus or another ‘prophet’ to go through the same ordeal again so as to set the ‘sin deficit ‘ back to zero
1] is the scapegoat sacrifice limited or infinite is infinite then
my last post needs concise editing – ignore final line from ‘1]’ onwards
dr+John+de+Wipper:
True. But on the other hand, there are plenty of women with a masculine build.
@Shaughn : are you now saying Jesus was a Russian female athlete ?
(s)he surely could have been!
Aya and Shaughn:
Were anabolics available in those days?
Aya+Hijab etc: Gold medal winner in catching the javelin….I’ll get my coat.
That would be a Russian female athlete with a harem of twelve males.
The reason they show her in leotard on the cross
is so you do not see her glans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NbaivsYTwM
[extreme female body builders video]
Jesus handed the Roman soldiers some 6 inch nails and said “Any chance you could put me up for Easter ?”…..I know where the cloak room is now.
Can Mo actually handle UK bank notes
given they have pictures of people on them
which surely makes bank notes haram,
so in reality all muslims should destroy or give away all their bank notes
to save themselves from blasphemy
@Darwin Harmless “Is there any way to test the premise ‘Jesus died for our sins.’?”
Piece o cake.
One experiment would require a pair of identical twins (to have the greatest assurance of controlling for confounding variables).
Both commit the same major “sin.”
One “believes on the Lord,” per biblical instruction; the other does not.
After their respective deaths, have them report back.
If the one who “believed on the Lord” has made it to Heaven, and the one who did not is in the Lake of Fire, the hypothesis has been given some confirmatory evidence.
Easy as pie.
If we can find a set of identical triplets, we could even compare the Roman Catholic theory against one of the major Protestant principles, as well as believing against not.