A new gay character is coming to the Archie universe. The new character, Kevin Keller, will debut in the Veronica comic (a spin-off from Archie) September issue.
Glenn O’Leary, a comic shop owner opined about the development:
Introducing an openly gay character brings Archie and his friends into the current world, O’Leary said.
“It makes the book a little more modern,” he said. “It’s going to get people to read the book.”
Openly gay characters in comic books are nothing new, O’Leary said. But including one in a “wholesome, family book” such as “Archie” is a radical change, he said.
When Archie was deciding whether to marry Betty or Veronica, sales of “Archie” comic books “went through the roof,” O’Leary said.
I’ll buy it if he does Reggie.
Welcome to planet earth, Archie. LOL
Seriously, that’s great news. Way to go Archie Comics!
I hope he’s normal. Stylish yet catty queen is a fun stereotype to write for, but is basically every gay character in everything for the last ten years.
Possibly a good foil for Jughead, though.
I find it thoroughly Disgusting that a kids comic is willing to accept a Gay Character I grew up reading Archie Comics at one point I had over 250 Archie Comics, I dont agree with having kids read them an grow up finding Gay people to be acceptable an common. I have since gotten rid of ALL my Archie Comics an will never buy another one! I am dissapointed in Archie Comics an the publishers for this decision.
Please tell me Ben is being sarcastic. Anyone?
You can tell by his grammar that he’s serious.
My sister is gay. I have gay friends. I’ve worked with gay people. Without a few exceptions, they are just ordinary people, no more, no less, and their hopes and dreams are just like anyones… Common folks with fears for the future, concern for their fellow men and women and the usual biases and peculiarities of human beings…
I am a Christian, but when I read the Bible and come across a passage that clearly tells me how to take care of my SLAVES, do you know what I do? I IGNORE the passage completely (ok, I chuckle a bit – it is quite silly) and realize that two thousand years ago, folks thought slavery was a good thing. See, two thousand years ago, the folks who wrote the Bible were WRONG as wrong can be. I mean, you can’t get any more wrong than saying owning slaves is a good thing. In the same way, when I read the Bible and come across a passage that clearly tells me that gay behavior is sinful, I ignore that bit of silliness too. Fallible people wrote the Bible and their ignorance will not be mine by proxy.
Unfortunately, Tom, those people exist in droves. And they vote. Whenever I step my toe outside of the city I prepare myself for the worst.
My wife’s recent experience working for a library kind of in the country …. hellloooooo 1955.
Well Mr Beals, now you’re just profiling people from rural areas, which is also bad.
And your first sentence was bigotist. Possibly even bigophobic.
@Dave I am a Christian, but when I read the Bible and come across a passage that clearly tells me how to take care of my SLAVES, do you know what I do? I IGNORE the passage completely (ok, I chuckle a bit ? it is quite silly) and realize that two thousand years ago, folks thought slavery was a good thing.
The fact that the Bible lays out rules for the treatment of slaves in no way implies that the writers think slavery is a “good thing”. The rules are meant to mitigate slavery’s evils, not to endorse the practice as a whole. Far from being “quite silly”, this represented and still represents a very great ethical advance. You may not hold slaves, but a lot of people still do, and if those slaves were at least treated in accordance with the Biblical rules, many would be better off. By the way, it’s worth noting that the “slavery” the Bible talks about is NOT the chattel slavery of the old South, which is what Americans usually think of when they hear the term. The “bondsmen” the Bible deals with are people who have either sold themselves or their children into what we would call indentured servitude, or people who have been captured in wars, and their status was a lot more fluid than Black slaves in the Americas. It’s a practice that is widespread still in many parts of the world, especially East Asia, and is quite close to things like sharecropping, which is practiced even more widely.
The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, is, at least for modern liberals, much harder to defend. But as long as that Archie character avoids actually engaging in anal sex, he may yet avoid the Lord’s wrath.
LOL @ Terry’s first comment.
Tom: No, I don’t think there’s any sarcasm involved. Folks aren’t happy unless they’re discriminating in one form or another.
@Gar, Yes I was. Yes it is.
My mother’s family is from the deep South and it’s a shame I can’t talk to them anymore now that my mother’s gone. I have gay relatives up North and a black daughter, so I’ve been told I’m going to hell.
My wife worked at a library that seemed more like a church. She was also told gay people were going to hell and that the apocalypse was coming because a black man was in the White House. These people were literally burying food in their yard in preparation. It was surreal. My black daughter said they looked at her like they had never seen a black person before.
Unfortunately, yes, there are many parts of my state (outside of the big city) that my black friends and gay friends stay away from because there is a notorious amount of hate, or at the very least being pulled over for Driving While Black.
Needless to say, unlike, oh, South Africa (of all places) my state forbids gay marriage. And the lady who cuts my hair has to pretend that her partner of 30+ years is her older sister.
I will stop profiling people in rural areas when they stop profiling my daughter on a regular basis. If it was occasional, then I would be less cautious. My experience has been that acceptance (not merely tolerance) exists on a cultural level in big cities. In rural areas it’s on a case by case basis.
Hmmm, I guess a nerve was touched there. Sorry. I’m usually pretty laid back.
“at one point I had over 250 Archie Comics”
pretty much says it all
@Terry
Was slavery “acceptable behavior” in the Bible? The answer is YES.
Was slavery a “sin?” Nope.
Did the Bible try to lay out a moral foundation about treatment of slaves? Yes.
If I tried to lay out a moral foundation for the treatment of slaves, would ANYONE believe me if I told them, “Oh, I’m against slavery itself, but here’s some great guidelines if any of you chooses to own slaves, ok? In fact, here’s some Biblical advice on when you should beat your slaves and when you shouldn’t beat them and by the way, if you beat your slave to death and they die, no worries if they die a couple of days later – as long as they linger a few days and THEN die, it’s not a problem…”
And point of fact, nowhere in the Bible, in any translation, does it say anything at all against slavery. Nowhere. Because slavery was completely acceptable and part of normal everyday living and it’s clear that the writers of the Bible had no ability to imagine a world without slavery in its many forms.
Is the Bible “Pro-slavery?” Yes, of course, how could it not be when the very foundations of their society 2,000 years ago DEPENDED on slavery?
I never really cared THAT much about Archie really. I doubt that bringing a gay character into the mix would make me run out and buy it. I’m sure the stereotypes will be really annoying.
As flounces go, this one is actually pretty good!
@Dave
You know what Dave? You’re a spectacularly ignorant human being. And you really shouldn’t go spouting off about stuff that you obviously know nothing about. In point of fact, ancient Hebrew society did not “depend” on slavery and I can’t imagine where you got the idea that it did. More to the point, arguing that because the Bible deals with slavery it is then PRO slavery is ridiculous. We have state laws that deal with alcohol and smoking–that doesn’t mean the state thinks drinking and smoking are themselves social positives. I can cite numerous other examples along those lines and I’m sure you could to.
The Bible isn’t pro-meat, even though there are many laws about eating meat. It isn’t pro-rape, though there are laws about what should happen if someone is raped. Etc., etc. No, it doesn’t say slavery is a sin and no, the Bible can’t imagine a world without it. So what? Till about 200 years ago, hardly anyone in the world thought slavery was intrinsically bad and, last I checked, it still exists, particularly the form the Bible addresses.
I find it interesting that someone who claims to be a Christian experiences the Bible primarily through anachronistic emotional reactions to various buzzwords. Not real deep, but hey, whatever works for you.
@Terry
As long as we’re talking about spectacular ignorance, I’d like to throw this gem into the mix…
“Till about 200 years ago, hardly anyone in the world thought slavery was intrinsically bad”
Now, I’ve never seen any polls from the period, but I bet slaves thought slavery was pretty bad… intrinsically even.
Jose and the Pussycats was an Archie spin off? I just assumed Alexander Cabot III was gay. And don’t even get me started on Alexandra!
Hello Terry! Wow, did strike a nerve? LOL
That’s a lot of attitude you’re spouting there, but hey, that’s just my opinion, your mileage may vary… 😉
When God tells his chosen people to make war and get slaves, hey, seems to me that slaves are a pretty important commodity, right? I mean, if it’s a reason to go and slaughter your fellow man, it must be pretty important… Ah, but not so important that you consider it a ‘foundation.’ Ok. Whatever works for you.
Still, I’m glad I dropped my archeology major and chose art because I’m sure that if I hadn’t, I would probably have had to interact more with name-calling folks like you who don’t think the contributions of slaves mattered much to ancient people’s bottom line.
Sorry, I don’t have any names to call you… Well, maybe irritated, I suppose. Does that work for you? It’s all I can come up with for now…
If they want to increase readership, then Betty and Veronica should come out of the closet. That would probably spark more interest that who Archie would marry. Then again, he could marry them both … just sayin’ 😉
Maybe Archie Comics should introduce a slave character next.
Taken from the supposed “Letter to Dr. Laura,” author in question, but still very to the point.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
That was hilarious, Tom. We could go on all day with that stuff. Leviticus was pretty wacky in particular, if I remember correctly.
I think it’s interesting to observe how Archie Comics has avoided going the way of Little Orphan Annie over the years.
My daughter’s high school has openly gay students. That was absolutely unheard of not that long ago. Familiarity breeds acceptance. A gay character that’s treated normally works a lot better for me than some melodramatic storyline (I write, not having read the comic).
@Terry
Google “Essenes,” a tribe of Jewish folk who were contemporaries of Jesus, and read about out what the Essenes thought about slaves, ok?
Here’s a hint: they freed them. That’s right, they freed slaves while Jesus preached.
Furthermore, Jesus’s “hometown” Nazareth had a community of Essenes in it and it seems likely that Jesus knew that the Essenes’ were against slavery.
Deep, huh?
That’s the problem with insisting that your particular holy book is the official unalterable final Word of God. As soon as it’s written down it starts to go out of date. When all those stories were part of an oral tradition, they were alive and could be adjusted to fit the then current needs of the society. Put into print and coupled to finality, the words calcify and die to us. Much better if they were a living document, like the constitution. Or a webcomic.
>>It isn?t pro-rape, though there are laws about what should happen if someone is raped. Etc., etc.
God is pro rape
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT) Moses after commanding the mass murder of the Midianites:
” Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.
Once again God approves of forcible rape.
Judges 5:30 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man,
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished;
@Terry: Dave is right. The example you cite only supports his position. The fact that the state regulates tobacco and alcohol, and collects taxes therein, is tacit support for their legality. States ban things they don’t like. They don’t regulate them.
One might defend the authors of the bible by citing contemporary cultural mores. But religion is supposed to set a higher ethical standard rather than go with the flow.
Well, Dave, you’re right. You did irritate me. I get irritated when people engage in simplistic, reductive reasoning in order to avoid understanding rather than increase it . If that provides you with emotional satisfaction, pat yourself on the back. I also get irritated when people leave dirty dishes in my sink or cut me off in traffic. They can be similarly gratified. I shouldn’t have called you names, though. Sorry about that.
The fact is, all these rules have been elaborated on and discussed for thousands of years. Like any body of law, their meaning has changed and expanded. But that doesn’t mean there’s not an ethical core that still holds. Even things you cite as immoral by today’s standards can be looked at in a completely different way. Take the difference in penalties between killing a slave outright(death to the assailant) and having him die after he survives after two days(paying a fine). The difference is because the sooner death is assumed to be intentional, and therefore murder in the first degree, and the later death to be an accident, since the wounds were less severe, and therefore manslaughter. Of course, this distinction is still made. Nonetheless, just because there were “slaves” in ancient Israel, most of whom were in that situation for financial reasons, doesn’t mean slavery was the basis of that society. Slaves were held until the early 1800s in Pennsylvania and Massachusets, but they were relatively few and the society could easily do without them, which is why slavery was abolished fairly easily there, as opposed to the South. Though Israelites are allowed to take slaves in wars, they are never instructed to wage war for the PURPOSE of taking slaves. I’m not sure what the Essenes have to do with anything, since they lived 1000 years after the Bible was written and information on them is sketchy, at best.
@Rick Yeah, ancient war was hell. So is modern war. But some of your quotes actually prove my point. If you continued on with Deuteronomy 21:10, you’ll see that, far from being a recipe for rape, the law actually demands that she be treated as a wife and forbids her to be enslaved. And your final quote, far from being an endorsement of rape, is in fact a warning of what will happen if Israel screws up. But I guess it doesn’t take a lot of effort to make the Bible mean exactly the opposite of what it’s intended to, if that’s you’re true desire.
@Ted Sorry, but the fact that something is regulated and that taxes are paid on it doesn’t mean the state regards it as a net positive. There’s a little something known as “harm reduction”. You think the government is happy about the fact that abortion is legal? Pay day lenders? Medical marijuana?
The truth is the Bible DOES posit an ethical standard that far exceeds that of the surrounding cultures of the time it was written. Condemning it because it doesn’t condemn everything we would today is like complaining there aren’t Biblical laws about driving on the freeway. Though people have deduced some, I’m sure.
@Guy Now, I?ve never seen any polls from the period, but I bet slaves thought slavery was pretty bad? intrinsically even.
Actually, given that most slaves themselves came from slave holding societies and may have even had their own slaves at some point, it’s doubtful that many of them thought slavery was wrong in principle, though they no doubt found their own circumstances inconvenient.
>>> If you continued on with Deuteronomy 21:10, you?ll see that, far from being a recipe for rape, the law actually demands that she be treated as a wife and forbids her to be enslaved
So it’s okay to kidnap conquered virgins, forceably take them as your wife as long as you don’t “enslave ” her? Where’s the morality in that?
Deutteronomy also says:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Oh yeah…God would
Here’s another gem from Deuteronmy that commands Death to the rape victim
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
…the Bible…nice book that….words to live by
@ Rick Stromoski
This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion (which I quite honestly have lost track of), but I wanted to say I really enjoyed your placement of the old comic characters in today’s “Soup” strip.
@Terry
Sorry, but you are wrong again – the Essenes were contemporaries of Jesus and also his neighbors in Nazareth.
the Essenes were a Jewish sect active in the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD.
Also, to say that “most” of the slaves in ancient Israel were there for financial reasons is false – we do not know what the percentage was, however, it is clear that the Old Testament exhorts its subjects to treat Jewish slaves differently than other slaves and from this many people logically assume that Jewish slaves were enslaved mostly for financial reasons. Were they the majority? No one knows, but who would YOU rather own, your own kind for a limited time for financial reasons OR another kind, from another part of the world FOR LIFE?
What many scholars conjecture from the writings and archeological evidence is that slaves were a major part of food production and that, by itself, lends truth to my statement that slaves were a major part of the foundation of the economy of most of the ancient world, including ancient Israel.
Removing slaves from their economy would have been a major blow – that’s my definition of a “foundation,” what’s yours?
Rick,
Rape, slavery and murder are awful. True.
But I submit they are far less offensive than Hell itself.
Hypothetical: If the God of the universe set out very clear rules for behavior for people He created, then those same people flagrantly, blasphemously and wantonly volated those rules, wouldn’t He be justified in punishing them? And wouldn’t whatever eternal punishment awaited them be far worse than any temporary Earthly suffering, even if it was murder, slavery or rape?
Granted, people who rebel against God in the old Testament have some pretty nasty things happen to them (especially when viewed through 21st Century eyes, as all of ancient human history would), but those temporal, horrible suffering pale in comparison to an eternity in torment.
From an eternal point of view, short term pain, as bad as it can be, is nothing compared to eternal pain. When balanced against each other in a brutal, violent ancient age, it’s a bit easier to see why a condition of slavery or even forced marriage with forced consumation of such was not the biggest problem these folks faced.
Additionally, there are many stories of God’s mercy and witholding of His judgement for those who sought His forgiveness. While it may be clearly a very tough history in our eyes now, let’s not paint it too one sided.
Wait, they get raped and then they have to go to hell?
Shane’s last comment ends up excerpted on the front page as:
“Shane Davis: Rick, Rape, slavery and murder are awful. True. But I submit they”
This, dear friends and neighbors, is the essence of conversation on the Internet. I mean, how could you see that and NOT click to find out what could possibly follow “But …”?
The only way it could have been better was if it had cut off “they,” so it read: “Shane Davis: Rick, Rape, slavery and murder are awful. True. But I submit”
But then again, Shane isn’t the masochist here. The masochists are the people still involved in this ridiculous, pointless conversation.
Which brings me to this question: Why do churches continue to use the Bible in print format? Don’t they realize that people today will worship with more fervor with a web-based Bible?
Fervor was outlawed during the Nicene convention – you didn’t get the memo?
@ Dave: the Protestant Reformation embraced fervor, though. And the Second Vatican Council declared that expressions of fervor might not constitute a mortal sin, but the exact meaning of that is still heavily debated by Vatican theologians.
@Dave I’m wrong? All I asked was what the Essenes had to do with anything, and you didn’t answer my question. Yeah, I know who the Essenes were. I’m just not sure why it’s relevant that they didn’t keep slaves. In any case, the relationship between Jesus and the Essenes is purely speculative. There were a lot of groups at the time espousing similar things and no ones sure about Jesus’ relationship to any of them.
More to the point, as Glenn Beck says, context matters. Trying to impose contemporary values on the ancient world, especially when it’s for the purposed of winning an argument, are bound to be fruitless. Even you admit that there’s a good chance that a significant proportion of the “slaves” kept by ancient Israelites were in fact bondsmen, who were forced to put themselves into the situation out of financial necessity and had the opportunity to extricate themselves from it by a variety of means. There wasn’t any Social Security, disability payments or Medicaid in ancient times, or the means to provide those things, even if people could conceive of them. So what exact recourse did impoverished people have? The fact is, the bondsmen system was a form of social safety net, and many of the people who took them on, who would, after all, have been neighbors, may well of done so with charitable intent. That the Bible is quite clear that people in that situation should be treated as human beings speaks in its favor, not against it.
Ditto for Rick, who seems intent on proving that Biblical laws intended to protect people are actually intended to do the opposite. Apparently he thinks that if God mandates anything short of the Geneva Convention for ancient prisoners, He’s actually Satan. In fact, the law about paying for lost virginity is in cases of seduction(meaning the activity was consensual), not rape. And it sure beats killing the seduced woman, which is what they do in Pakistan today. What kind of God would make a law like that? I dunno, Rick. But I doubt pulling random quotes out of context for the purposes of reinforcing your preconceptions will bring you closer to understanding.
The argument that the Bible has no moral relevance unless everything single thing it says is applicable to all people at all times with no elaboration or interpretation is ridiculous. Obviously, it’s the product of a particular time and place. But the principals that can be deduced from it ARE still relevant and applicable, which is why it’s had such a powerful effect on history and why people still study it.
@Shane What’s all this stuff about Hell? That’s not even IN the Old Testament.
@Mike Peterson What can I say? If I wasn’t a masochist, I wouldn’t be a cartoonist. And if you weren’t a masochist, you wouldn’t be following this thread.
So….Archie Comics, huh?
I think Jughead has fervor.
“Jughead the Fervent” was one of the more prominent Essenene prophets.
I have over 250 Archie comics. I keep them all lined and underline my favorite parts like passages from the bible.
@ Mike,
“Shane isn?t the masochist here…”
Oh yeah!? Says You! I keep joining these threads on religion, don’t I?
Terry,
Not trying to open any dispute between our faiths intentionally, perhaps a better turn of phrase would have been “they are far less offensive than eduring the wrath of God.”
I understand those of the Jewish faith don’t subscribe to an eternal punishment Christians refer to as Hell. I’m certainly no theologian, but I think there are some verses that do seem to reference an eternal punishment:
Daniel 12:2
Isaiah 66:24
Deuteronomy 32:22
Psalms 55:15
But again, I know our faiths differ on that point. I apologize for being clearer.
“I apologize for NOT being clearer.”
Oh, the irony of getting a typo in THAT sentence…
@Terry:
Yes.
@Terry
You are wrong here, when you said: “I?m not sure what the Essenes have to do with anything, since they lived 1000 years after the Bible was written and information on them is sketchy, at best.”
They were contemporaries. Of Jesus. And Anti-Slavery.
Why does that info matter? To show you were also wrong with this unsupportable statement:
“Till about 200 years ago, hardly anyone in the world thought slavery was intrinsically bad and, last I checked, it still exists, particularly the form the Bible addresses.”
And you are exceptionally wrong when you say this:
“The Bible isn?t pro-meat, even though there are many laws about eating meat.”
So if you see a book titled, “How to Cook Meat,” you are saying THAT book isn’t “Pro-Meat?” You can say that with a straight face?
Or if you see a book titled, “How to Beat Your Hebrew Slave,” you are saying THAT book isn’t Pro-Slavery? Or this best-seller, “Some Slaves are Your Property for Life, and Hebrew Slaves are Your Property for Six Years.”
Wow. Denial really isn’t just a river in Egypt…
Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I don’t admit the obvious. And denying the obvious isn’t Christian, it’s just wrong…
But the real question here is whether or not God is going to smite Archie, Archie Comics, the Village of Mamaroneck, the Town of Mamaroneck, New York, or the United States as a whole. How big a smite stick does this gayness provoke?
It seems to me the real question is who is America’s Best Christian. A reality show coming soon to a network near you.
@Steve: I don’t think America has a single Christian. Christians supposedly believe that they will be judged for all eternity based on their actions. So why do I see so many homeless people sleeping outside? If I thought I might be going to hell for being a jerk, I’d spend all my time and energy being kind to people. And my guest room would house a dozen bums.
Is anyone in Archie Comics a declared atheist?
@Ted: The Catholic Worker and L’Arche communities, some monasteries, several other communities, families, and individuals do exactly that.
Don’t say there aren’t any Christians — just not enough.
@Dave How can I be “wrong” about the Essenes? I only asked you what they had to do with your argument–and you STILL haven’t told me! What exactly does it mean that they didn’t keep slaves? They didn’t do a lot of things. They were weird.
And why is my comment about attitudes towards slavery wrong? The British anti-slavery movement, which was the impetus behind ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the abolitionist movement, started in the late 1700, or a little over 200 years ago. I’m not aware of any large-scale questioning of the morality of the practice before that.
As for your other points, I’ve addressed them repeatedly. The fact that you just keep restating them without directly rebutting me shows that you have nothing more to say. I hereby declare victory and leave the ring.
BTW, it’ been incredibly hot this summer. How can you not believe in global warming?
Hey, does Archie Comics really need a new gay character? Why can’t Dilton Doiley just come out?
Oops, I meant the late 1700s. Don’t bust my nuts over that, too.
Ted: “Christians supposedly believe that they will be judged for all eternity based on their actions. So why do I see so many homeless people sleeping outside?” I am not one, but all the major extant Christian sects do not in fact believe this. You are judged by your faith in God, and your good works are supposed to be a manifestation of that faith. Trying to save yourself through good deeds is actually a sin, and their was a big fight about this obscure theological point 1500 years ago or so, with people calling other people heretics, and Pelagianism being condemned by the church.
@Terry: Dilton Doiley can come out later when they realise having a gay character doesn’t really mean much if there’s nobody for him to be gay with.
Assuming the new gay character is a dude, of course.
Oh wait, Kevin Keller. I forgot the start of the thread 😛
@Robert:
Since we don’t see (m)any manifestations of that supposed faith, is it safe to assume people don’t have faith in God?
July/22/2010
@ 9:15 am
@Ted:
“Robert:
You are judged by your faith in God, and your good works are supposed to be a manifestation of that faith.
Since we don?t see (m)any manifestations of that supposed faith, is it safe to assume people don?t have faith in God?”
A lot of these groups think that everyone who does not belong to their particular sect is damned and not a true believer. So I doubt that shakes their faith.