I took her frown from a couple of strips back, popped it into Paint.NET, did a quick recolor, added a Super Saiyan Aura and DBZ background, and called it a day.
Absolutely can be. People can believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and His redemptive sacrifice for humankind and also believe that a horrible thing they want to do is quite all right because blah blah excusecakes.
She’s a hateful, spiteful, nasty Christian in dire need of repentance.
“Repentance” is a weird way to say “boot to the ass”…
LynneB
“… and also believe that a horrible thing they want to do is quite all right because blah blah excusecakes.”
They believe it’s ok, because they are Good People™, and they are Good People™ because they are such good Christians, and since Good People™ don’t do bad things, but they are doing this thing, then that clearly means that this thing they are not doing is not a bad thing. BECAUSE they are doing it, and they are Good People™ who don’t do bad things. See?
Alex_L_H
Nixon Logic?
Bizbag
Nixon’s full explanation is clearer than that and actually not something I *completely* disagree with, where the president can give authorization to do things that would otherwise be against regulations or illegal (which IS the function of an executive to do), because the president is more accountable to Congress and the people than, say, the CIA. Nixon’s other behavior belied his authoritarian streak, however, which colors this justification, and why the interview is historically relevant.
Mary’s logic rests on some faulty premises; that “good people” are immune from being wrong in their actions, that Christians (as she defines it) are “good people”, and that she meets the definition of Christian no matter what she does. Thus, in all cases, she is Christian, therefore she is Good, therefore she is never wrong.
Yeah, I’m sorry, but yes she is. She might be an absolutely awful Christian, but she’s still Christian.
People like Mary exist among us, even within communities that are important to us. You can’t simply handwave that away by saying they were never really part of those communities.
Lumino
Actually, you kind of can. Part of the requirement for being Christian is following the path of Christ.
If you aren’t doing that, you aren’t a Christian.
She might go to church, receive communion or whatever, but she doesn’t walk in his steps, so she is not a Christian.
The problem is there are enough different interpretations of what exactly constitutes a “true Christian” that no one Christian can say “Well she doesn’t fit MY definition of a Christian and is therefore not a Christian.”
Of course it’s it’s wrong to judge ALL Christians by the behavior of the shitty ones, but it’s also very dangerous to dismiss the shitty ones by implying they’re not REALLY true Christians. This downplays the very real issue of people using their religion as justification for extremely shitty outlooks and behaviors. Because these shitty people are still, in their minds, Christian.
It’s beneficial to be acknowledge there are shitty people in every group rather than just pretending they’re not part of the group.
Arian
In this context, I find it more useful to parse “Christians” as “people who consider themselves Christians and are known by other people to consider themselves Christians” than get tangled up up in whether it’s possible to define a Real Christian, and if so, whether any given person fits that definition or not.
There are people who feel that no true Christian could vote for Donald Trump, and demonstrably a lot of other people who think it was perfectly fine, or even the only available moral action. It doesn’t resolve the question of how to deal with the harmful actions of those who regard those actions as Christian-compatible or Christian-mandatory to just declare those people not to be Christians at all.
Andy
The problem is there are enough different interpretations of what exactly constitutes a “true Christian” that no one Christian can say “Well she doesn’t fit MY definition of a Christian and is therefore not a Christian.”
Though some sects actually will say, and 100% mean, that someone is not a Christian if they don’t follow that sect’s individual flavor of Christianity. Usually it’s based on doctrine rather than personal behavior. Personal behavior tends to be policed by each sect or church on their own. So if your behavior doesn’t follow their guidelines (e.g., you think homosexuality is okay or you don’t go to church often enough), they’ll decide you’re not a Christian and kick you out.
So the No True Scotsmen fallacy ends up being a bit more interesting in cases like this because there’s actually a case to be made to say that someone is not a Christian, depending on the rules of one’s own sect, but acording to the rules of another they may still be.
Jhon
Agatha considers herself to be a Christian.
I’m sure Mary considers Mormons to be… er, not.
According to the doctrine that I was raised under, you’re confusing sanctification for justification. Once you are justified, that is, saved from hell by Christ’s sacrifice (death and subsequent sojourn in hell, where his soul was destroyed before miraculously popping back into being at the same instant), you are saved, and therefore Christian.
After that, you must work on your own sanctification, that is, living by following Christ’s teachings, denying your base impulses and practicing submission to the demands made upon you by the moral code of the Bible. So according to this version of Christianity, to which many (though by no means all, or even the majority of) Protestants subscribe, Mary, having acknowledged Christ as her savior and the Christian God as the only true god, is absolutely Christian.
She’s a terrible person. That wouldn’t be in question. But she’s Christian.
It’s the hypocrites and extremists that stand out of every group enough that they’re what you think of when you think of that group of people. Mary fits my view of Christianity to a tee.
It’s an irony that a substantial portion of Rabbi Joshua ben Josef’s ministry was devoted to how much people were using religion to fuck over people in his time and how they needed to stop it.
I would say Rachel’s stance on redemption, if she believes it, makes her not a Christian, because the whole point of that religion is that we can all be redeemed by Christ. I’ve talked with people of dozens, if not hundreds, of different Christian groups, and they all have their own spin on that, but the fact that it *happens* is a constant.
Mary, on the other hand. People like Mary are the reason I originally stopped being a Christian. Because if that’s something to aspire to, I’m out. If I could’ve told myself Mary wasn’t a Christian, it would’ve taken more. But she’s not, to my knowledge, taken any stance that is actually strictly opposed to Christianity. Many denominations would denounce her, but most of those would not denounce the denominations that would hold her up as an ideal Christian.
I imagine Jesus in the corner of the panel, standing at the edge of the group, going “Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN!!!” when Mary speaks, and Billie looking over at him and being all, “Really?” and Jesus looking kind of embarrassed but also kind of pleased with himself.
yeah I still don’t see her reacting to Mary in any way
butting
She’s not really seeing the consequences of things though, or she wouldn’t have shitbombed Ruth. Mary being Mary could just be low-grade noise to her right now, rather than an active threat to the health of half the dorm.
(and oh crap, Joyce in the background’s almost as heartbreaking as Amber…)
Lena
Nah, she’s just a cowardly worm that likes kicking people when they’re down. It’s easy to grandstand when people are at their lowest.
Liliet
Yup. For someone who thinks themselves oh so perceptive and wise and world-weary, she sure does ignore most of what’s going on around her.
Tgape
Ignoring most of what goes on around you is typically key in thinking oneself perceptive and wise, knowing all about the world. There are very few people who can really understand all the nuances of what goes on in the world. I know that I myself cannot, yet I seem to do a better job than most of the people I’ve encountered who seem to think they can. I can think of a few people I’ve met who do a far better job than I do. But generally, they don’t seem to consider themselves wise. There’s one I’m not sure of; I never got to know her well enough.
Now would be a real great time for Rachel to turn around and tell Mary to fuck off too, but,
1. Rachel’s rant and the circumstances around it suggest she either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what Mary did to Ruth. I lean toward doesn’t care, since Billie said she talked to the floor about it IIRC.
2. Pretty sure the second part is meant to be hushed, so’s to keep anyone other’n Billie from hearing it. The audience is just meant to hear “Why wouldn’t I smile?”.
Mary blackmailed Ruth.
Using Ruth and Billie’s relationship,
with the threat of the RM.
To achieve personal freedom from her authority.
Billie (and the floor) blackmailed Mary.
Using Mary’s previous wrongdoings, ie blackmail, and a swift punch, as a power play,
with the threat of the RM
To achieve Mary acting like a kind person.
Now, I think.
Mary is blackmailing Billie in an attempt to control Ruth
Using the punch and the blackmail plot (likely saying Part A was false)
with the threat of the RM or higher
To again achieve personal freedom from authority.
Stories need villains and antagonists. Mary exists to be hated. It’s her purpose as a character. The more you hate her, the more of a successful villain her creator can consider her to be.
Stories don’t really need villains and antagonists, but that’s a bit beside the point.
I do disagree that a hated villain is necessarily a good villain, though. When thinking back on what I count as great villains they didn’t make me go “I hope that asshole gets hit by a truck”. That was reserved for the ones that wore out their welcome and/or were just annoying.
foamy
A story requires conflict to be in any way interesting; therefore, an antagonist is necessary. It needn’t be a villain, of course. It is simply a force that opposes the protagonist in their goals. The three essential types of story: Person v. Person, Person v. Nature, Person v. Self.
DinaWho
There’s also Person v. Society, but that may be a subset of Person v. Person, idk.
foamy
There’s debate. Some people include Person v. God, too, for example. I prefer to keep things simple though :p
David M Willis
everyone always forgets Jet v. Head
Jhon
A good villain has good reasons for doing bad things.
A bad villain is bad because the script says so.
Halpful
Personally, I find exploration and learning quite interesting, when they’re well-written. Like the parts of the Recluse books where the main character learns a trade.
523 thoughts on “Lie”
butts
NO
FUCK OFF MARY
JUST
FUCK
ALLLLLLLLL THE WAY OFF
a4lbi
…………..same
TheAnonymousGuy
This girls not a Christian, can’t be.
Delicious Taffy
About that…
Danni
shes christian in every worst way possible
-Sentinel-
Where’d you get a blond Ruth avatar?
Danni
excuse! a super saiyan ruth avatar!
butts
I’d assume either Willis’ Tumblr or Photoshop
Delicious Taffy
I took her frown from a couple of strips back, popped it into Paint.NET, did a quick recolor, added a Super Saiyan Aura and DBZ background, and called it a day.
Shen Hibiki
I think you should call it an avatar, instead…
Delicious Taffy
I have been, though.
El Chupacabre
And here I thought it was a shiny Ruth avatat
TrueVCU
^I’m sure at least one person here would get that as a tattoo though
Jhon
I wonder how Becky would look with anime hair…
Aeron
I’ve encountered far too many “Christians” like her in my time.
C.T Phipps
I used to be an incredibly awful one (could always use improvement too) so, yeah, sorry on my end.
Jenny Islander
Absolutely can be. People can believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and His redemptive sacrifice for humankind and also believe that a horrible thing they want to do is quite all right because blah blah excusecakes.
She’s a hateful, spiteful, nasty Christian in dire need of repentance.
Sephiroth144
“Repentance” is a weird way to say “boot to the ass”…
LynneB
“… and also believe that a horrible thing they want to do is quite all right because blah blah excusecakes.”
They believe it’s ok, because they are Good People™, and they are Good People™ because they are such good Christians, and since Good People™ don’t do bad things, but they are doing this thing, then that clearly means that this thing they are not doing is not a bad thing. BECAUSE they are doing it, and they are Good People™ who don’t do bad things. See?
Alex_L_H
Nixon Logic?
Bizbag
Nixon’s full explanation is clearer than that and actually not something I *completely* disagree with, where the president can give authorization to do things that would otherwise be against regulations or illegal (which IS the function of an executive to do), because the president is more accountable to Congress and the people than, say, the CIA. Nixon’s other behavior belied his authoritarian streak, however, which colors this justification, and why the interview is historically relevant.
Mary’s logic rests on some faulty premises; that “good people” are immune from being wrong in their actions, that Christians (as she defines it) are “good people”, and that she meets the definition of Christian no matter what she does. Thus, in all cases, she is Christian, therefore she is Good, therefore she is never wrong.
Shiro
She identifies as Christian and uses Christian ideology as basis for her bigotry. Besides, plenty of real life Christians are comparably bad.
Keulan
Please don’t no true Christian this. There are plenty of Christians like Mary in the real world.
Fart Captor
Yeah, I’m sorry, but yes she is. She might be an absolutely awful Christian, but she’s still Christian.
People like Mary exist among us, even within communities that are important to us. You can’t simply handwave that away by saying they were never really part of those communities.
Lumino
Actually, you kind of can. Part of the requirement for being Christian is following the path of Christ.
If you aren’t doing that, you aren’t a Christian.
She might go to church, receive communion or whatever, but she doesn’t walk in his steps, so she is not a Christian.
autogatos
The problem is there are enough different interpretations of what exactly constitutes a “true Christian” that no one Christian can say “Well she doesn’t fit MY definition of a Christian and is therefore not a Christian.”
Of course it’s it’s wrong to judge ALL Christians by the behavior of the shitty ones, but it’s also very dangerous to dismiss the shitty ones by implying they’re not REALLY true Christians. This downplays the very real issue of people using their religion as justification for extremely shitty outlooks and behaviors. Because these shitty people are still, in their minds, Christian.
It’s beneficial to be acknowledge there are shitty people in every group rather than just pretending they’re not part of the group.
Arian
In this context, I find it more useful to parse “Christians” as “people who consider themselves Christians and are known by other people to consider themselves Christians” than get tangled up up in whether it’s possible to define a Real Christian, and if so, whether any given person fits that definition or not.
There are people who feel that no true Christian could vote for Donald Trump, and demonstrably a lot of other people who think it was perfectly fine, or even the only available moral action. It doesn’t resolve the question of how to deal with the harmful actions of those who regard those actions as Christian-compatible or Christian-mandatory to just declare those people not to be Christians at all.
Andy
The problem is there are enough different interpretations of what exactly constitutes a “true Christian” that no one Christian can say “Well she doesn’t fit MY definition of a Christian and is therefore not a Christian.”
Though some sects actually will say, and 100% mean, that someone is not a Christian if they don’t follow that sect’s individual flavor of Christianity. Usually it’s based on doctrine rather than personal behavior. Personal behavior tends to be policed by each sect or church on their own. So if your behavior doesn’t follow their guidelines (e.g., you think homosexuality is okay or you don’t go to church often enough), they’ll decide you’re not a Christian and kick you out.
So the No True Scotsmen fallacy ends up being a bit more interesting in cases like this because there’s actually a case to be made to say that someone is not a Christian, depending on the rules of one’s own sect, but acording to the rules of another they may still be.
Jhon
Agatha considers herself to be a Christian.
I’m sure Mary considers Mormons to be… er, not.
LovelyMonsters
According to the doctrine that I was raised under, you’re confusing sanctification for justification. Once you are justified, that is, saved from hell by Christ’s sacrifice (death and subsequent sojourn in hell, where his soul was destroyed before miraculously popping back into being at the same instant), you are saved, and therefore Christian.
After that, you must work on your own sanctification, that is, living by following Christ’s teachings, denying your base impulses and practicing submission to the demands made upon you by the moral code of the Bible. So according to this version of Christianity, to which many (though by no means all, or even the majority of) Protestants subscribe, Mary, having acknowledged Christ as her savior and the Christian God as the only true god, is absolutely Christian.
She’s a terrible person. That wouldn’t be in question. But she’s Christian.
svata
No TRUE Scotsman
Joe Covenant
Careful….. 🙂
Furie
It’s the hypocrites and extremists that stand out of every group enough that they’re what you think of when you think of that group of people. Mary fits my view of Christianity to a tee.
C.T Phipps
It’s an irony that a substantial portion of Rabbi Joshua ben Josef’s ministry was devoted to how much people were using religion to fuck over people in his time and how they needed to stop it.
Tgape
I would say Rachel’s stance on redemption, if she believes it, makes her not a Christian, because the whole point of that religion is that we can all be redeemed by Christ. I’ve talked with people of dozens, if not hundreds, of different Christian groups, and they all have their own spin on that, but the fact that it *happens* is a constant.
Mary, on the other hand. People like Mary are the reason I originally stopped being a Christian. Because if that’s something to aspire to, I’m out. If I could’ve told myself Mary wasn’t a Christian, it would’ve taken more. But she’s not, to my knowledge, taken any stance that is actually strictly opposed to Christianity. Many denominations would denounce her, but most of those would not denounce the denominations that would hold her up as an ideal Christian.
Godfather
FUCK. OFF. MARY.
Ana Chronistic
“I could stand to lose a dorm-mate, sure”
Emperor Daniel
Hint hint
Kris
Dun…dun…..DUNNNNNN!!!!
shadowcell
just as Jesus would’ve said it!
LovelyMonsters
I imagine Jesus in the corner of the panel, standing at the edge of the group, going “Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN!!!” when Mary speaks, and Billie looking over at him and being all, “Really?” and Jesus looking kind of embarrassed but also kind of pleased with himself.
Wack'd
“Then, once again, fate smiled. It was a sickening, sadistic smile–but it was still a smile.”
Rosicrucian
Shouldn’t have said that within earshot of Rachel, Mary.
SUGauthor
She attacked Ruth in front of Mary knowing full well that Mary made Ruth suicidal, I’m not sure what’s changed now.
timemonkey
Rachel can hate multiple people.
Rosicrucian
Rachel’s not exactly fond of Mary either.
Liliet
yeah I still don’t see her reacting to Mary in any way
butting
She’s not really seeing the consequences of things though, or she wouldn’t have shitbombed Ruth. Mary being Mary could just be low-grade noise to her right now, rather than an active threat to the health of half the dorm.
(and oh crap, Joyce in the background’s almost as heartbreaking as Amber…)
Lena
Nah, she’s just a cowardly worm that likes kicking people when they’re down. It’s easy to grandstand when people are at their lowest.
Liliet
Yup. For someone who thinks themselves oh so perceptive and wise and world-weary, she sure does ignore most of what’s going on around her.
Tgape
Ignoring most of what goes on around you is typically key in thinking oneself perceptive and wise, knowing all about the world. There are very few people who can really understand all the nuances of what goes on in the world. I know that I myself cannot, yet I seem to do a better job than most of the people I’ve encountered who seem to think they can. I can think of a few people I’ve met who do a far better job than I do. But generally, they don’t seem to consider themselves wise. There’s one I’m not sure of; I never got to know her well enough.
foamy
Now would be a real great time for Rachel to turn around and tell Mary to fuck off too, but,
1. Rachel’s rant and the circumstances around it suggest she either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what Mary did to Ruth. I lean toward doesn’t care, since Billie said she talked to the floor about it IIRC.
2. Pretty sure the second part is meant to be hushed, so’s to keep anyone other’n Billie from hearing it. The audience is just meant to hear “Why wouldn’t I smile?”.
Stephen Bierce
*plays ELO’s “Evil Woman” on the hacked Muzak*
Cephalo the Pod
I don’t know what song, so I’m just singing it to the tune of “Pretty Woman”.
Whirlwitch
Personally, I’m going by the tune of “Witchy Woman” by the Eagles.
Needfuldoer
Here you go!
Warning: it’s the catchiest song ever written in half an hour.
Mr. Random
…Is…Is she going to blackmail her with the fact that she blackmailed her with her own blackmail?
Or more easily the punch to her face.
Fart Captor
I’m guessing she’s going to start needling Ruth at every opportunity to get back at Billie.
butts
she’s just gonna mary all over the two of them
man
fuck OFF, mary
Delicious Taffy
Wait, what order are these blackmails in?
Mr. Random
Mary blackmailed Ruth.
Using Ruth and Billie’s relationship,
with the threat of the RM.
To achieve personal freedom from her authority.
Billie (and the floor) blackmailed Mary.
Using Mary’s previous wrongdoings, ie blackmail, and a swift punch, as a power play,
with the threat of the RM
To achieve Mary acting like a kind person.
Now, I think.
Mary is blackmailing Billie in an attempt to control Ruth
Using the punch and the blackmail plot (likely saying Part A was false)
with the threat of the RM or higher
To again achieve personal freedom from authority.
Hera
Why doesn’t just Marry find a new floor?
Fart Captor
She’d hate them just as much (assuming she ever actually got transferred), and it would be admitting defeat, and letting her intended victims win.
Jhon
And now I want to defeat Mary with haiku…
Fart Captor
Every time I think I hate Mary as much as I possibly can, she finds a way.
SUGauthor
Can’t we just be done with Mary? I sick of her shit.
Zozo
Stories need villains and antagonists. Mary exists to be hated. It’s her purpose as a character. The more you hate her, the more of a successful villain her creator can consider her to be.
Havtorn
Stories don’t really need villains and antagonists, but that’s a bit beside the point.
I do disagree that a hated villain is necessarily a good villain, though. When thinking back on what I count as great villains they didn’t make me go “I hope that asshole gets hit by a truck”. That was reserved for the ones that wore out their welcome and/or were just annoying.
foamy
A story requires conflict to be in any way interesting; therefore, an antagonist is necessary. It needn’t be a villain, of course. It is simply a force that opposes the protagonist in their goals. The three essential types of story: Person v. Person, Person v. Nature, Person v. Self.
DinaWho
There’s also Person v. Society, but that may be a subset of Person v. Person, idk.
foamy
There’s debate. Some people include Person v. God, too, for example. I prefer to keep things simple though :p
David M Willis
everyone always forgets Jet v. Head
Jhon
A good villain has good reasons for doing bad things.
A bad villain is bad because the script says so.
Halpful
Personally, I find exploration and learning quite interesting, when they’re well-written. Like the parts of the Recluse books where the main character learns a trade.