Frazz by Jef Mallett for January 04, 2012

  1. Missing large
    ReneTray  almost 13 years ago

    I’m sorry he gets on my nerves.

     •  Reply
  2. 11 06 126
    Varnes  almost 13 years ago

    Rene, yeah. He deserves a time out…It’s time to explore some other characters…We need a couple more teachers, too. Hey! Jeff!

     •  Reply
  3. Franco s trattoria
    StoicLion1973  almost 13 years ago

    FINALLY! Someone else agrees. Caulfield is a smart kid but he’s quickly becoming an annoying smart -ss.

     •  Reply
  4. Picture 038
    Cathy38c  almost 13 years ago

    Why has he had the same teacher for the past 4 years?

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Astrocreep2112  almost 13 years ago

    The meaning of AD is Anno Domini or Year of our Lord referring to the year of Christ’s birth. The meaning of BC is Before Christ. If BC is before Christ and AD is after death there would be a gap of 30 years or so during his life that would not be accounted for.

     •  Reply
  6. Sun svg example
    terminalman90  almost 13 years ago

    Thanks Sharuniboy. And continuing on, Jesus was not actually born in mid winter. Restructuring of the Christian calendar moved the date of his birth to coincide with other pagan mid winter festivals. The date is a matter of convenience, not historical fact.

     •  Reply
  7. Sun svg example
    terminalman90  almost 13 years ago

    … and actually, Biblical scholars will also attest that the year of his death is also likely wrong as well.

     •  Reply
  8. Knees phuh
    phuhknees  almost 13 years ago

    Scientific scholars will attest he probably never even existed at all… except in fairy tales.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    JayWarner  almost 13 years ago

    “scientific scholars” do not require courtroom level evidence to draw conclusions – there isn’t any for millennial-old events. These folks evaluate the available information, taking into account the likely motivations and situations of the recorders of the information. The consensus conclusion appears to be that yes, a person with a radical message did live, speak and act in the region of the present Israel around 30-35 AD. Whether this person was “the Christ” is a matter of personal belief. As it always has been. “Scientific scholars” do not address such beliefs.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    JayWarner  almost 13 years ago

    Back to the cartoon: So what about a ‘bank holiday’ for old homework? I want to know what problems 3-9, 11, 14, 17-21, and 24 are. Maybe we could substitute some others for Caulfield.

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    JayWarner  almost 13 years ago

    And BTW, if you think Caulfield is a smart-ass, it might suggest that you have trouble with all the kids who see through the facade of “proper behavior.” I found that the smartest kids were the ones who pushed the intellectual bounds, and I enjoyed sparing with them most.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    engineman  almost 13 years ago

    Hey, Jay Warner do you mean "sparing with them " as in spare the rod and spoil the child?

     •  Reply
  13. Knees phuh
    phuhknees  almost 13 years ago

    Can “personal beliefs” based on fairy tales hold a candle to the scientific method?What do you think, Caulfield?

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    Mstreselena  almost 13 years ago

    For those of us non-Christians, which is a major part of the world population, doesn’t it seem a little conceited?

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    hippogriff  almost 13 years ago

    There is a difference between scientific scholars and atheist propagandists. Before funding was possible, most scientists were clergy, doctors, or nobility – simply because they had flexible enough schedules to permit the research without being fired. Professors were the segue to the professional scientist. Thomas Huxley pointed out that the existence of God can neither be proven nor falsified by the scientific method, so use science for that which can be proven or falsified and faith for that which cannot.

     •  Reply
  16. Hammy
    pnorman1  almost 13 years ago

    Like you, I consider myself an agnostic. When people ask me why I’m not an agnostic, not an atheist, my reply is it takes much too much faith to be an atheist. Surprisingly the only person who understood my answer was a Evangical Christian.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    hippogriff  almost 13 years ago

    GatoCat: I never claimed an excluded middle. I personally know and have worked with both kinds on issues of mutual interest.

    It was Thomas Huxley who coined the term “agnostic” meaning what what I described above and Night-Gaunt underlined. Unfortunately, some anonymous people, never willing to let a good term remain, seem to have defined it as “Duh, I don’t know if God exists or not.” Remember Huxley’s sotto voce comment in the debate with Soapy Wilburforce. It seems both abolitionist William Wilburforce and Thomas Huxley had nephews who sullied the family name.

     •  Reply
  18. W12
    chris_weaver  almost 13 years ago

    Yes, SHE’S the one who started down that slippery slope!

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    childe_of_pan  over 7 years ago

    I am simultaneously annoyed and amused by atheists who assert unequivocally that there is no god. That is no less dogmatic than the blind assertion that god exists. Faith is belief in that which is inherently unprovable; that’s why it’s called faith and not knowledge. I think the only rational response is agnosticism. Mind you, I do believe in god(s), but I can’t really know, and refuse to state my beliefs as fact.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Frazz