• empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    226
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    What in the manufactured persecution fetish is this bullshit? Where’s the meme?

  • De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    215
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s funny how ‘getting an abortion’ is the most atheist thing the artist could think of - I believe that’s not even forbidden in the Bible?

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      197
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s a recipe to induce abortion in the Bible.

      Not reading it is part of the book club.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve been trying to find that bit and my apparently poor googling techniques are finding nothing. Do you mind sharing an article or passage? (Just got back from a vacation with some fairly religious family members who were goddamn tiring, would be nice to be able to cite this next time.)

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh, if you want more fun, read them these two verses:

          Exodus 21:12:

          Anyone who assaults and kills another person must be put to death.

          And Exodus 21:22:

          When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges.

          Then ask them why the punishment for killing a person is not the same as the punishment for causing a miscarriage.

          After that, ask them why, if the Bible is the “inerrant” word of God, do some translations of that second verse use “miscarriage” while others say something more general like “caused a premature birth” instead? Because the meaning of that verse changes drastically depending on which way it’s translated.

          At this point, you’ll probably be called a godless baby killer and uninvited from Thanksgiving dinner.

          • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            After that, ask them why, if the Bible is the “inerrant” word of God, do some translations of that second verse use “miscarriage” while others say something more general like “caused a premature birth” instead? Because the meaning of that verse changes drastically depending on which way it’s translated.

            According to Google Translate, the original Hebrew for just that phrase directly translates to “and her children went out,” but with the full context of the verse it becomes “and her children are born.” Make of that what you will.

            I could translate it to “and she gets a black eye,” but that doesn’t make the word itself any less reliable, only my wrong translation. I don’t know about the people you hang out with, but I’m pretty sure it’s important for Christians to understand that human translations are prone to error.

            • Billiam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              10 months ago

              It’s problematic to try to read that verse as just meaning “born” exactly because of the context. The whole passage is about restitution in two scenarios: a pregnant woman who is injured as a bystander from two men fighting and

              1. suffers an unclear birth event with no additional damage

              2. suffers an unclear birth event with additional damage.

              Breaking it down that way, it seems apparent to me that the birth event must mean a miscarriage. If two men fight and that causes a woman to go into labor, but her child is safely delivered, what restitution would be owed? What harm has actually been caused? That actually eliminates scenario 1. The only way the whole passage makes any sense for the father to be owed payment is to see what property he has been deprived of- a potential child, or a potential child and his wife. And this just helps to reinforce the point: the punishment for causing the death of a person is not the same as for causing a miscarriage, which means that in the Old Testament unborn fetuses we’re not equal to people

              And no, American Evangelicals do not allow any room for error in translation of the Bible, because they see it as God’s direct word to man and therefore it can’t be wrong.

              • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                Guess I must be something other than an American Evangelical then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                It sounds like you found a sensible way to translate it.

              • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                I copied what Google Translate told me. I’m no expert on matters relating to birth. That’s why I said “make of that what you will.”

                However, I do know that we have a lot more technical language than they did back then, so that’s something to keep in mind.

                • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The people who downvoted this have no sense of humor. C’mon, “borth?”… objectively hilarious.

          • rurb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Pro-abortion in the case of adultery or rape. Plus it is from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament so it’s a Christian thing by inheritance from Judaism.

        • Neko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There is a kind of “recipe” in Numbers 5:11-31

          It’s a “test for an unfaithful wife” but it’s a curse which would make a woman miscarry a child if it belonged to someone other than her husband.

        • toasteecup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Just ask them how god defines weddings in Christianity then point out Jews had weddings first.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            They’re both abrahamic religions… It would make sense that God (being the same supernatural being in both religions) would have the same definition under both religions…

            • toasteecup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              It would but it doesn’t. Jews by and large don’t care about homosexual marriage and even find it acceptable per God’s teachings. The only ones who don’t are the conservative Jews.

              Christians on the other hand by and large care about homosexuality alot. Add to it Christians (in the states at least) like to say that they defined marriage, there’s proof that isn’t true. So if Christians didn’t invent it and were born of Judaism that would say to be that Christian belief regarding marriage is irrelevant from a “we created it” standpoint.

              Tying it back to my original thought, pointing that out to Christians pisses them off.

              This also works with abortion. Most Jews don’t care about it, some even go so far as to say this “a baby before birth is merely a part of the mother’s body.” Meaning it’s up to the mother what to do about her body. Up to and including termination.

  • Wage_slave@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Finally a relatable comic that offers a true look into the home of your standard antifa, or uppity lib.

    Why just the other day I found a baptism certificate in my daughters backpack.

    Well that was three abortions and the gender reassignment is booked for next year.

    Seriously though, holy fuck. How does someone come up with that nonsense and actually believe that?

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s two types. One that is really that stupid and one that just wants to create chaos. There has been scientific research about this.

    • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      THE YOUTH PASTOR PREGNANCY ABORTIONS FOR MY LITTLE SUSIE ARE JUST FINE.

      It’s all the other little removed who are enjoying sex or may die from their pregnancies that we really worry about. Those babies need to be saved for Jesus.

      • Starshader@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        We’re talking about a religion based on the fact that a god made a girl pregnant without her consent. So I guess it’s part of their beliefs ?

  • words_number@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The fact that this is not satire about conservatives ridiculous fever dreams, but a serious depiction of one, makes it really damn funny :'D

  • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wow, I don’t even know how to process this. The dumbass conservatives are getting so confused about life they’re actually creating sarcastic comics about their way of thinking unintentionally.

    This is peak irony

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Conservatives don’t know how comedy works. I call it the Yo Mama hypothesis.

      When you were a kid, and other kids lied about your mom, you got mad, right? And eventually they’d say - relax, it’s a joke, stop crying. And if you’re reading this then you probably grew to understand the difference between saying something and meaning it.

      I don’t think every kid got there.

      I think a lot of kids, maybe a whole quarter of humanity, only learned that jokes are insults you have to shut up and take. They’re cruelty you’re not allowed to get mad about. How would those kids act differently? They’d stop crying, mostly, when people told rude lies about their mothers. They’d snap back at other kids, telling rude lies about their mothers. From those events you’d figure, great! They get it. It’s not real. Except… they only look right from the outside. On the inside, they’re gathering a list of excuses for vicious behavior.

      These people know what jokes look like. They’re clever enough to build a punchline. They kinda get how you tell jokes. But they have no idea why you tell jokes.

      People defending Dave Chappelle insisted “he’s a comedian!” like that absolved all his opinions. I’ve walked those people through how jokes require setup that reflects sincere beliefs. (Like how “eat the rich” is a joke about classism and cannibalism, but it’s only joking about the cannibalism.) I’ve cited the many times Dave repeated certain claims far from any stage. But these folks never come acknowledge that being a TERF is not part of the act. That’s not how it works, in their worldview.

      Being a comedian means he gets to say things you’re Not Supposed To Say, even if they’re things you absofuckinglutely believe. That’s all they thought Jon Stewart was doing. That’s why they thought Stephen Colbert was on their side.

      The same people routinely parroted “you can joke about anything,” which is equally revealing. They’d heard it because they insisted “you can’t joke about [blank]!” even for the most benign, supportive, and inoffensive gags. And also for dead-baby jokes and antitheism. Point is: these types don’t care about severity, because they don’t care about meaning. They believe in blasphemy. They think condemnation, criticism, or even just speaking less-than-reverently about a subject is profaning something sacred, and chances are good they’ll hit kids for doing it.

      We told them every subject is fair game for fair jokes. They’d stop yelling, mostly. And from that event we’d figure, great, they get it. But on the inside, they still believe the issue is what a joke is about. They still think joking is an attack under agreed-upon rules of engagement. So of course funny black man shit on trans people. They don’t like trans people. It’s hardly a secret. What’s our beef, saying he’s not allowed to spout jokes full of prejudice and hatred? They’re jokes. That’s what they’re for.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      In case you haven’t heard of them, chick tracts have been hilariously bad since before the Internet. They are plentiful, and at least as insane as this comic here. You could dedicate a sub to them. One of my favorites was one ‘in the near future’ where non-christian children were compared to Hitler youth.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I know that this is serious, but it’s so bad is good.
    It has become the parody of a parody, this comic has so many layers of irony that transcends politics

  • Starb3an@sh.itjust.works
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like this should go in c/therightcantmeme, or c/conservativescantmeme. I don’t remember the exact name

  • Cows Look Like Maps@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Imagine if we just leaned into their wacky right-wing conception of pro-choice and were like “yeah, our endgame is to have as many abortions as possible per capita.” Their heads would explode lol

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well 75% of his cartoons feature blatant racism, so I’m gonna go with no.

      And I don’t mean like dog whistle racism or microaggression, I mean like you’d expect to find these comics in the KKK magazine level.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wouldn’t be upset, I’d just be a little disappointed. If you’re gonna believe in God, there are better ideas out there than that, but I wouldn’t be upset about it unless the usual beliefs and actions tag along too.